For years, many of us have raised concerns over the political weaponization of the New York legal system from the civil fraud case against the Trump company by New York Attorney General Letitia James to the criminal prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The popularity of these lawfare warriors shows how a dual legal system has taken hold in the city. That was never more evident than in the decision of Bragg to drop the case against Brianna J. Rivers, 30, who assaulted a pro-life advocate in a case of political violence. While blamed on negligence within his office, the dropping of the prosecution of Rivers is only the latest example of enabling those who turn to violence in our political system.
Rivers was captured on videotape attacking Craven Antao after she asked Rivers questions about abortion and repeated her answers. Antao was persistent and argumentative in the video below, but never threatened Rivers or in any way prompted an assault:
New York police arrested Rivers in April on one count of second-degree assault. Prosecutors had this videotape that showed no provocation or excuse for the violent attack. Antao had to go to emergency room for stitches and pay $3,000 in medical bills.
Nevertheless, Bragg’s office first downgraded the charge from second-degree assault to a misdemeanor and has now dropped the case entirely. He is going to let Rivers walk after an act of political violence captured on film.
According to reports, Braggs’ office missed a critical deadline to turn over evidence. However, this came after the office downgraded the case and then threw up its hands after missing the deadline. It is either a case of intentional scuttling or a lack of priority given an allegation of political violence. The most that Braggs’ office can claim is that it was incompetent in one of the most notorious cases in the office. The videotape received national attention with other examples of violent political incidents.
Bragg’s office could not focus on bringing even a misdemeanor case to show that political violence is unacceptable, even from those on the left.
If this were a pro-life advocate attacking a pro-choice person in New York, it is hard to imagine Bragg slow-walking the prosecution, downgrading the charges, and then dismissing the case after missing a deadline. There would have been an outcry from the public for deterrence and prosecution.
We have also seen the wholesale dropping of charges against rioters in major cities despite massive levels of property damage.
Compare the handling of lawyers in New York City who threw Molotov cocktails at police with a recent case in California. The attorneys (Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman) were given generous plea deals by the Southern District of New York with only 15 months in jail. The judge even praised one of the lawyers for her commitment to public interest. There were no state charges.
This week, a ‘scholar-activist” received almost 20 years in prison and a nearly $100,000 in fines for firebombing a University of California Berkeley police car and other acts of arson. Casey Goonan also claimed political motivations in supporting Palestine in the attacks.
Even given the more extensive record of violence of Goonan, the light punishment given to the New York lawyers was shocking to many of us. Admittedly, that was not a state case, but rather a federal case under the Biden Administration. However, it reinforced the uncertainty as to punishment for serious crimes in New York. There was no apparent move by the district attorney to bring state charges or to push for more serious penalties from their federal counterparts.
It seems that most of our government has been taken over by DEI and Affirmative Action second stringers, and their only skill is screwing things up. I know the symptoms because I live in California!
This is not DEI or second stringers. This is intentional, orchestrated, strategic. Puppets, directed by tactical, hidden puppeteers, pulling the strings. We must find them and stop them.
This highlights the importance of the Comey prosecution to be exquisite, indisputable, and result in a conviction and real punishment. I hope they have the goods….
Of course, he did
This was a powerful read. Spending three days immersed in Donbass must give a perspective that’s very different from what we usually see in headlines. First-hand accounts like this help highlight the human side of conflict that statistics can’t capture. I also came across an insightful piece on how long a football game really lasts, and it reminded me how detailed reporting — whether on sports or geopolitics — can really change how we understand events.
There is no justice if you are a pro-life conservative. Biden & Bragg just proved it.🤬🤬
Stop being hysterical.
Excuse me?
Stephaine
ANO is our typical jerk.
Hate the truth… Most libs do
Show me where Stephanie Wilson hurt you on this doll? There is help if you are just willing to get it. It can heal your broken life.
Open season for violent assault on you if you are a pro-life conservative. Biden & Bragg just proved it
Give me a reason more violent radical leftist won’t do the same thing? Because the punishment is to stiff? LOL
“Cornyn: Comey Was ‘Bound and Determined to Destroy’ Trump After 2017 Firing”
– Jeff Poor
_____________
Allen Dulles et al. was bound and determined to assassinate JFK after he was fired as the head of the CIA by that president.
Normally I agree with you. But I grew up in a blue collar world. The “reporter” was looking for a Jerry Springer-style person and then goaded her as much as she could. The woman was legally in the wrong but see what would happen if an antiabortion nut went out into the street and “nonviolently” confronted some liberal moms picking up high school kids from school with “legal” bloody fetus pictures her kids could find on the internet. Not to justify the woman’s low-rent behavior but the interviewer was looking for a likely bull to bait and she found one.
So do walk away
Craven had plenty of time to move on to someone else, but continued to play to see what she could say to get a violent reaction and – Craven’s accusation that the woman was willing to kill children in foster care, a concept that Craven introduced to the conversation – that was the final straw. Craven went from a hyperbolic stupid question that got a hyperbolic response to make it personal and focused. I think that accusation falls well within the concept of fighting words.
Fighting words? Come on, man. Repeating someone’s offensive words to them, can’t be fighting words.
Since 1942 SCOTUS has narrowed “fighting words” to almost nothing.
Today “fighting words, must be a specific and immediate call to violence” such as “I will beat you up if you do not do X”
“Craven had plenty of time to move on to someone else”
Craven is not the person who took offense at someone else’s speech.
Craven is not the one whose anger was building until she could not control it.
Rivers chose violence over walking away.
She had agreed to be interviewed.
This is entirely on you.
You left wing nuts constantly presume everyone else is responsible for your acts.
Everyone else is responsible to know that YOU can not control your urge to act violently
“Craven’s accusation that the woman was willing to kill children in foster care, a concept that Craven introduced to the conversation”
That is merely a reductio ad absurdem argument – it is a perfectly legitimate logical argument.
Rivers is responsible for her own emotions.
“that was the final straw.”
Yes, Rivers lost control of her emotions in an argument that she entered voluntarily and was in over her head.
The topic does not matter with respect to Rivers criminal conduct.
They could have been discussing marceme.
You do not get to punch someone because you do not like their argument.
The topic is relavant to showing bias in Braggs dismisal of charges – because there is an obvious political pattern in Braggs choices.
” Craven went from a hyperbolic stupid question that got a hyperbolic response to make it personal and focused.”
False and irrelevant. Violence is NOT EVER a legitimate response to argument.
” I think that accusation falls well within the concept of fighting words.”
Nope
“In 1972, the Supreme Court held that offensive and insulting language, even when directed at specific individuals, is not fighting words”
Bragg is a criminal.
Your comment smells.
The med bills 3000. Isn’t that minor? The stitches? Where were they? Face? Permanent scars? The attacker has no money. It’s not like prince Andrew attacked with money to pay.
Not everything is political. The woman caused physical injury. Jail time.
Good grief
^^^ I bring it up because this is the opposite of moral luck. It’s the reason I don’t believe most of the allegations thrown around Jean Carroll or Virginia Guifree. Wealthy people don’t punch people because of lawsuit pay outs. There’s none Gere and Bragg isn’t interested
No payola. The attacker should be a felony with jail.
It’s the crime and not the person. 1000s of teens are on street corners but no one’s charged. Andrew pays up. The sentences should be the same rich or poor. There’s no justice in any of this.
No proofreading..bleck
If $3000 is minor, why don’t you offer to pay it?
The Left has “created a permission structure for violence.” We’re entering a dangerous new phase where leftist violence against law enforcement or against conservative voices is normalized.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination is not random. History shows the pattern:
1.Label your opponents “evil”. For example “Nazis” and “Fascists”.
2.This implies normal rules don’t apply to them
3.Excuse or celebrate the violence
It has happened before in Germany, Rwanda, and even here.
-Jeffrey Mead
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeffery-mead-warns-democrats-rhetoric-has-created-permission-structure-violence
Old man, you are senile. Fox news is not a source for accurate and true reporting.
Far more reliable then CNN or MSNBC
This is a pattern with leftists. If they were intelligent, they could win arguments based on facts and logic. But they are not, so they can’t. That makes them mad, so they resort to violence.
That pattern you state, is just the way you argue. Nothing like a stupid and dumb conservative.
OldManFromKS,
This is true. As the video shows, the recent attacks on conservatives, from shouting obscenities, filling tables, destroying property, to assassinations and attempted assassinations. When leftists cannot win a debate based on logic, reason, facts, they get violent. They then blame the victim and or are rewarded their violence by not having to answer to law and order by lawless Democrats.
IF I were to meet a leftist like Dennis, Gigi, annony moron, the slow and dumb one in real life, I would not turn my back to them, and I would keep my hand close to my knife, (it is legal to open carry a long blade in my state). We all know how unhinged they are, Dennis proclaiming proudly he is a domestic terrorist, and simply disagreeing with them, they could be triggered and resort to violence as we have seen in the past. I consider unhinged leftists a real danger to society as we have seen by their actions. And leftist Democrats reward that kind of behavior.
DEPORTATION NATION!
We are a nation of laws.
If you do not like the laws – work to change them.
I want the executive branch – DHS, CBP, ICE, … to enforce the laws we have – whether they agree with those laws or not.
Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be about the strength or weakness of the case – MOSTLY we should not prosecute cases that can not be won.
Prosecutorial discretion is NOT about whether you agree with the law or not.
I am not in total agreement with all of our laws. We have far far far too many laws.
The federal govenrment is NOT supposed to have a general police power.
I would be happy to work together with people on the left to change our immigration laws.
I would support essentially a LEGAL version of open borders.
You come here at a border crossing – not sneaking through in the middle of the night.
You are vetted to assure you are not a criminal, and you prove that you will not be a public charge.
That can be accomplished by sponsorship. But that would be sponsorship with teeth.
If you agree to sponsor someone – YOU are economically responsible for them.
I would eliminate quotas, and the immigration lottery. I would eliminate preferences for specific countries.
If microsoft wishes to sponsor immigrants – fine with me – but Microsoft will foot the bill if they can not support themselves.
If the catholic church wishes to sponsor immigrants – fine with me – but again they are on the hook if they can not support themselves.
If and individual wishes to sponsor family members – or just random foreigners – fine – but sponsorship means responsibility
The current shutdown threat is atleast partly over whether those here illegally can collect medicare and medicaid.
In what world are we allowing people who enter the country illegally top get free medical care ?
Immigration legal or otherwise is NOT supposed to be a welfare program for the world.
But we are not going to enact the immigration system that I want.
And regardless of What I want or think is a good idea, the actual concept of a nation specifically means establish who is and is not part of the country.
I think legal immigration is a good thing and we should have more of it.
Rather than exporting jobs to China or elsewhere – we can import people who want to come here for the opportunity to pursue the american dream – which is freedom – and you are NOT free unless you have the opportunity to fail and the possibility that consequences of failure will be bad.
But I am also realistic – while I think there is a massive amount of historical economic data that establishes that immigration – even large scale immigration is a NET positive (NET is NOT the same as absolute – Immigration has losers) that does not mean that as a nation we MUST do what I want – even if I think there is lots of evidence that is the best choice. If others do not agree with me – we have a constitution and political process that is to resolve that disagreement.
One of the requirements of that process is that we obey and enforce the laws that we have,
that is the only way we can be certain that if we are able to change them – that those changes will be enforced too.
As a Citizen I have an enormous number of rights to live my own life as I please.
But I do not have the right to FORCE on others what I am certain is a good idea.
We have immigration laws in this country – if you want help changing them – I can work with you where we have common ground. But if you are asking – demanding the destruction of the rule of law – I am not interested.
The amount of illegal immigration in this country must always be ZERO.
The amount of legal immigration and the rules for coming here, for becoming a citizen in any other way than being born hear, are determined by our legal and political process.
Until I can change those rules to what I want them to be, the govenrment – the executive branch – regardless of the party in power, is obligated to follow the law as it is, not as it wishes it was.
If you are not here legally – you get deported.
If you do not like who is getting deported – elect congressmen who will change those laws.
What total manure. Booby hatch material.
Do you have an argument
If the American Founders and Framers like it, I like it.
Oops! It looks like they like it!
A Nation. Its laws. Its people.
__________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
So who were the attorneys and docket clerks in Bragg’s office that were responsible for this egregious error? Managing the docket is a basic skill for a prosecuting attorney, especially in a high profile case case of political violence. Did Bragg terminate the responsible person or persons? What else is Bragg doing to fix the failures that allowed this to happen?
For Bragg’s office, this was a feature, not a bug. They intentionally sent a message: pro-lifers can be victims of violent crime in NYC, and that’s just fine and dandy with the authorities. It’s open season on pro-lifers.
Epstein didn’t kill himself. Guards sleeping? No checks, inmate in orange jumpsuit ascending stairs. Inmates murdered him.
Kimmel is back on air because of bomb threats. If Kimmel had any integrity he’d resign for that reason and say so.
BRAGG has enough Weight to enforce the law!!
There is more than one way to inspect a Fani
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/doj-issues-grand-jury-subpoena-fani-willis-travel
Now do Bragg.
Why democrats should want Kimmel off the air in their own words
John Say – leftists want free speech for leftists no matter how egregious their lies. But they simultaneously don’t want conservatives to have free speech to tell truths they find uncomfortable. Your comment about the video you posted would only make sense if you started from the assumption that leftists believe neutral principles should govern speech. That assumption is false. As many have correctly pointed out in this comment section, on the left, the only standards are double standards.
John Say, NONE are talking about censorship. They are voicing concerns about propaganda, inciting violence, etc. None are saying they should be silenced by government.
The right WANTS government to force the silence of individuals like Kimmel, Colbert, Meyers, and anyone critical of Trump.
Kimmel’s comments were not defamatory or lies. Gaslighting Kimmels remarks to mean what they don’t mean is a blatan dishomest way to interpret what he said. The right’s inexcusable, intentional fabrication of what Kimmel said is an excuse to “prove” the left is evil.
It’s pure garbage.
“They are voicing concerns about propaganda”
Propoganda is protected speech or all left wing nuts would be in jail.
“inciting violence”
AOC does says that – but there is nothing Tucker Carlson has ever done that comes within a thousand miles of inciting violence.
AOC is lying.
Jackson litteraly says that the first amendment takes away govenrment power to regulate speech – as if that is a bad thing.
Kerry and Waltz say much the same thing.
They are ALL talking about Government power to restrict speech,
“When it comes to broadcast televison – these are subject to federal regulation with regard to what is allowed on the air” AOC – or weren;t you listening ?
“My concern is that your view of the first amendment hamstrings the govenrment in significant ways”
Justice Jackson
“Your shoudnt be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation”
Jen Psaki
Pretty much a text book call to censor.
Is their anyone that does not beleive what they say is right and what there political oponents says is wrong ?
One person’s misinformation is another persons truth.
It is possible to discern what is likely true, but that is NOT a power that you ever want to give to government,
It is also a power that can trivially be abused to very bad results.
“There is no guarantee to free speech around misinformation or hate speech especially arround our democracy”
Tampon Tim Walls
Litterally shilling for censorship.
But more importantly absolutely totally completely constitutionaly WRONG
“There are americans who are engaged in this propoganda, and whether they should be civily or criminally charged is something that would be a better deterent”
Hillary Clinton.
Leave it to Hillary to go full on Nazi – yes lets send people who say things we do not like to jail.
In the US there is one and only one institution that CAN NOT engage in propoganda, and that is our government.
Political parties and opponents can engage in propoganda, Foreign nations can engage in propoganda – and our ggovernent can with respect to foreign nations. But Our Government can not use FORCE to shill its idea of what is true on the rest of us.
“If people go to only one source, and that source is sick, and has an agenda and their putting out disinformation, our first amendment stands as a major block – its really hard to govern today”
John Kerry
Yes the first amendment is there specifically to STOP governnent from using force to violate peoples rights – even when govenrment does not like what is being said.
That said – the only thing hard about governing today – is that both parties – but far more the left than the right seek to make govenrment every bigger and more powerful.
Governing is easy – if you trust the people with the freedom and the right to deal with their own problems.
What is impossibly hard is not governing in the world of free speech, but trying to through government micromanage everyone on the planets life.
If you want trans operas in Columbia – GO FOR IT. Just do not make everyone in the country pay for that whether they want it or not.
“This is a matter of corporate accountability, twitter should be held accountable and shutdown that site, it is a matter of safety and corporate accountability”
VP Harris.
Corporations are accountable – to shareholders and customers.
They only accountability they have to govenrment is to follow the social contract that bars them from using force.
“The first amendment is not absolute, it does not protect any single thing anyone says, and there are limits and that is important. What this committee has been trying to do for the last year and a half is to try to chill the federal govenrment from monitoring what is going on on social media”
Rep Goldman.
Who manages to offend not just the 1st, but 4th and 5th amendments concurrently.
It is NOT constitutional for govenrment to “monitor” speech, except where there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.
Monitoring the speech of citizens is what the Nazi’s did, what the Russians did, What Mao did, what Xi does today.
It is what every tyrant that ever was does.
Each one of these people is proving exactly why they are unfit to hold public office.
“None are saying they should be silenced by government.”
Aparently you can not hear.
Shut down – that is silenced by govenrment
prosecuted criminally – that is silenced by government.
“The right WANTS government to force the silence of individuals like Kimmel, Colbert, Meyers, and anyone critical of Trump.”
No they want private consequences for bad speech.
Each of the people in this clip wanted govenrment to silence people. None of them were republicans.
The right wants ABC/Disney to take away from Kimmel THEIR platform that allows him to speak to millions,
ABC/Disney do not have to listen to the right. Just as the right does not have to listen to ABC or buy Disney products.
Kimmel is free to speak. On his own platofrm – or anyone else stupid enough to let him.
Regardless you are constantly telling everyone what the right wants – and you have no clue.
you are the worlds worst mind reader.
“Kimmel’s comments were not defamatory or lies.”
ROFL
Of course they were both.
“Gaslighting Kimmels remarks”
Your the one doing that.
Your the one saying – do not beleive your eyes and ears.
I find it odd that whenever YOU cite Kimmels remark – which you rarely do,
You always edit it, cutting it off before the false and defamatory portion.
But you do not seem to grasp that the remark is not even a proper sentence without the false and defamatory part.
You demand source – you have been given them,
Then you lie about what was said – even in the face of kimmels actual words.
It is crazy lying – do not beleive your ears – beleive what I tell you you heard.
John Say,
Great take down of the slow and dumb one and using his own lame reasoning or lack there of to take him down with!! Good on you for reading his lies and gaslighting, but listen the village idiot once, no reason to do it again.
Leftists like Dennis, a proclaimed domestic terrorist, Gigi, the annony moron, the slow and dumb one are perfect examples of why they are such threats to society. By their words and actions as we have seen, I would never turn my back on one of them if I were to meet any of them in real life. As we have seen, they are not capable of having a debate and anything could trigger them to resort to violence.
Here, here. Author! Author!
No way that I could say it better. Touche!
————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
I have the feeling Bragg will soon be swimming in deep chit with Comey, James et al🤞🤞🤞
President Trump
Awesome, get them all!
Thank you Pam!
Wish I had more to say other than the fact that the modern left are evil oligarchs, proven further each day, but 🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
Oops. Bad sign in
James
I would be your neighbor too🫣
Now would be the time for Bondi to go after the perp with a federal hate crime. Afterall, this is what we’ve been indoctrinated by the Democrats to do.
Thomas Sowell – excellent as always.
Excellent!
Glad to see Sowell is in favor of street drug dealing, prostitution regardless of age, drinking, gambling, unlicensed driving, and doing whatever anyone wants – as long as the immediate participants consent.
Wetlands include both swamps and areas that are sometimes bone dry, but have ecology that depends on them being wet. But, oooh, snakes. The thing about the transitory wetlands is that they feed the aquifers from which other people draw water. By poisoning wetlands with runoff of fertilizers and pesticides farmers can poison other people tens of miles away. Sowell wants to re-purpose the name “swamp” to mean acceptable use as a toxic waste dump, because it smells and has snakes. Further, he involves farmers when, by extension, he means petroleum or chemical processing plants dumping poison into a river and toxins up stacks into the air. They did this in Herculaneum, MO, and it’s almost practical to strip mine residential yards to recover the lead particulates that were spread across the area.
It is interesting the voice-over, “raising hell on our streets,” shows someone sitting with a blanket and the few possessions they manage to keep. Like Sowell has walked anywhere.
Fight the good anti-Christian fight there Mr. Sowell. You got yours and you think it happened all because of you.
“Glad to see Sowell is in favor of street drug dealing, prostitution regardless of age, drinking, gambling, unlicensed driving, and doing whatever anyone wants – as long as the immediate participants consent.”
Sowell is not. Just another left wing nut red herring.
Walter Block however does.
https://mises.org/library/book/defending-undefendable
Defending the Undefendable performs the service of highlighting, the fullest and starkest terms, the essential nature of the productive services performed by all people in the free market. By taking the most extreme examples and showing how the Smithian principles work even in these cases, the book does far more to demonstrate the workability and morality of the free market than a dozen sober tomes on more respectable industries and activities. By testing and proving the extreme cases, he all the more illustrates and vindicates the theory.
“Wetlands include both swamps and areas that are sometimes bone dry, but have ecology that depends on them being wet. But, oooh, snakes.”
The purported wetlands that are not swamps, are just ordinary places that govenrment wants to try to regulate.
Even the desert is sometimes bone dry and has an ecology that depends on sometimes being wet.
Sowell is correct – either you are just renaming swamps as wetlands, or you are renaming everything else wetlands.
Throughout Human history – man has drained the swamps. In doing so man has driven out myriads of diseases and made life longer, healthier and more prosperous.
Or do you want to restore Ohio to the conditions of a couple of centuries ago when living there was likely to result in dying of malaria.
“The thing about the transitory wetlands is that they feed the aquifers from which other people draw water. ”
False. There is a water cycle – the rain comes regardless.
“By poisoning wetlands with runoff of fertilizers and pesticides farmers can poison other people tens of miles away.”
And yet the reality is that does not happen – the greatest poluter of water both now in the past is govenrment – not fertilizer and pesticides.
“Sowell wants to re-purpose the name “swamp” to mean acceptable use as a toxic waste dump”
No Sowell is using the term as it has been used for all of human existance – a dangerous place to avoid, or better yet as we have become able, to drain and put to use that is beneficial to humans.
“because it smells and has snakes.”
No because it is unhealthy and kills humans.
” Further, he involves farmers when, by extension, he means petroleum or chemical processing plants dumping poison into a river and toxins up stacks into the air. ”
And yet – with few exceptions that is NOT what has happened. Businesses and industry rarely dump waste and then not for long. A corollary to the law of supply and demand is “Supply creates its own demand”
Businesses dump things that there is too little of to make a product out of and are not worth the effort or cost of otherwise disposing of. Regardless, if you do not make a product of it – it is going to end up somewhere.
When I was young there was a huge municipal landfill half a mile from my home. It would rain in the landfill the water would pick up things in the landfil and the runoff would go into a river by my home.
Today the runnoff is clean – not because anyone did anything – but because everything leached out.
Today we build landfills that will not leak for 300 years. But 300 years will come.
The left likes to talk about recycling – but for all of existence that is precisely what nature does – without our asking.
Things are born, they grow they die they decay and they are the food for new life, and endless virtuous recycling circle and humans do not need to do anything.
Much of the fertilizer we use today is excerment – $hit, chick $hit, Pig $hit, human $hit. We grow food fertilized by $hit. Some of it becomes our food, some of it goes elsewhere where it may kill some life and allow others.
When you are manipulating nature – you are NEVER deciding between good and evil.
But you are always playing god – deciding which parts of nature will thrive and which will not.
Humans ultimately choose what is best for them. That is always good for somethings and bad for others.
Regardless, ultimately farmers tend to work to reduce runoff – because it is fertilizer or soil and stopping it from leaving means not having to replace it.
Further – that pattern is the natural progression of a free market ALWAYS.
You profit by delivering a product cheaper than others. That is accomplished by producing it more efficiently.
Any product is initially more efficiently produced than whatever it replaced, but far less efficiently than it can be.
Over time we improve the efficiency of production – that means producing less waste or converting the waste to a product.
Modern Humans think of pollution as a modern thing. But indians moved their settlements regaularly – because the land they lived on became too polluted. In the 17th century london – before the industrial revolution the air was more polluted than in the early 20th from burning $hit and coal and peat for heat.
One of the major factors increasing lifespan throughout the world is that we have changed what and how we heat and cook nearly everwhere in the world. Until the modern era few women lived to old age – if they did not die in childbirth they died from the crap they inhaled from cooking.
Pollution is not new, and it is now worse than in the past – in fact it is much better.
“They did this in Herculaneum, MO, and it’s almost practical to strip mine residential yards to recover the lead particulates that were spread across the area.”
So ? And if you are correct – no govenrment needed.
“Like Sowell has walked anywhere.” I am sure he has – probably more than you have.
Why is it left wing nuts beleive they know all about the lives and motives of people they never met.
“You got yours and you think it happened all because of you.”
For the most part it did. To the extent it did not, Sowell benefited from those even more productive than he was.
Most everything works off the paretto principle.
80% of outcomes come from 20% of causes – recursively.
The top 20% are responsible for 80% of the prosperity of the country.
Of the top 20% 4% of them are responsible for 65% of prosperity.
But most of us are in the top 20% of SOMETHING
Hodge Twins, good review of this situation. Poor Brittany has become a Political Mortar??? Lots of info from Brittany, herself:
I don’t talk to strangers.
Malpractice insurance for Bragg? Sue him. Can you imagine relying at that clown. 3000 dollars and stitches.
Alvin Bragg and Zohran Mamdani . . . What could possibly go wrong?
Good
For Nothing…there, finished your sentence for you!