John Hinderaker writes for the Powerline blog about facts surrounding global temperatures.

Hysteria about global warming stems from the fact that, as best one can estimate, the Earth’s average temperature has increased by around 1.1 degree C over the last century. Global temperatures have fluctuated widely in the past, and it has long been debated whether the current increase is anything unusual. At the Science of Climate Change, computer scientist Les Hatton recounts a relatively simple analysis that he conducted, using the oft-studied Greenland ice cores. From the paper’s abstract:

“In this paper we first dissect the background behind this number and what it means. Second, we use the Epica-Vostok Ice core dataset, a single proxy dataset for temperature data sampled every century for the last 800,000 years or so and ask the question ‘Is a 1.1°C temperature rise in a century unusual in this dataset?’

“The answer is surprising. By considering interglacial onsets and decays as well as intermediating Ice Ages, it turns out that a rise of this amount would have been considered unusual more than 200,000 years ago, but this rise is not unusual in the current interglacial which started some 20,000 years ago with around 16% of all centuries since the last Ice Age exhibiting a temperature rise of at least 1.1°C. None of these could have anthropogenic components as they pre-dated the industrial era. This result suggests that attempts to partition the current rise into anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic components are questionable given that it is not even unusual.” …

… Usually, the Earth is caught in a deep freeze. Happily, we are living in an inter-glacial warm period. In fact, the Earth has been warmer than it is today the overwhelming majority of the time since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago. … There is a correlation between temperature and CO2 in part, at least, because warmer temperatures force more CO2 out of the oceans.

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the global warming catastrophism that is relentlessly propagated for reasons of political gain and economic self-interest.

The post Placing global warming claims in perspective appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

M.D. Kittle writes for the Federalist about the latest pronouncement from US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments on a widely-watched birthright citizenship case, Jackson once again showed that a basic understanding of the law is no longer a prerequisite to serve on the nation’s highest court. No three words uttered together stir more terror in the hearts of men as KJB declaring, “I was thinking …” 

… Jackson struggled all morning with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified in 1868, the civil rights amendment was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not the children of millions of illegal immigrants looking for a pass to stay. Or “birth tourists.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that for decades after the amendment took effect, it was widely  understood that children born to temporary workers in the United States were not citizens. …

… Jackson mused that if she stole a wallet while in Japan, she would be bound by her “allegiance” to the country’s criminal laws and the consequences therein. The bizarre train of logic began with those three dangerous words. 

“I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said. “It’s allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them, if my wallet is stolen, to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it.”

”So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”

In a very real sense that makes no sense. Visitors are bound by the laws of the countries in which they travel. Kind of like millions of “undocumented” migrants are bound — or should be bound — by U.S. immigration law. They don’t owe an allegiance to the country that should be enforcing said laws. And therein lies a huge problem with birthright citizenship. 

The post Questioning Justice Jackson’s grasp of the law appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Chuck Ross writes for the Washington Free Beacon about questionable priorities for a New York City government agency.

The New York City Parks Department, facing a $33 million budget cut and chronic understaffing problems, instructs its supervisors to be “antiracist” activists who police “microaggressions” and promote conversations about race in the workplace, documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The department’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging provides the “Microaggressions” training to help senior leaders and employees identify “subtle” slights that people experience in the workplace “due to their group identity,” the records show.

A resource guide created by the same DEI office—titled “What every supervisor/manager should know about race and racism in the workplace”—recommends books and documentaries that portray white people and society as inherently racist, including Nikole Hannah-Jones’s historically inaccurate 1619 Project, Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist, and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility.

The guide also features a “Becoming Anti-Racist” graphic “inspired by Dr. Kendi,” which it says supervisors can use “to discern where you are on your journey.” The guide identifies four “zones” in the path toward “Becoming Anti-Racist.” The “Fear Zone” includes those who “avoid hard questions” and “strive to be comfortable.” The “Learning Zone” includes those who “understand [their] own privilege in ignoring racism” and are “vulnerable about [their] own biases and knowledge gaps.” The final “Growth Zone” includes those who “promite [sic] and advocate for policies and leaders that are Anti-Racist,” “educate [their] peers how Racism harms our profession,” and “yield positions of power to those otherwise marginalized.”

Supervisors are also encouraged to engage in race-related “reflections.” Questions they should ask themselves, according to the training, include “Have I explored my own biases and fears?” “Do I encourage trainings around issues concerning race, unconscious/implicit bias, and diversity and inclusion?” and “Do I create opportunities for discussing race and racism in ways that are relevant to the work in my unit?” For the parks department, that “work” includes managing the city’s 1,000 playgrounds, 1,800 public basketball courts, 14 golf courses, and other facilities.

The post NYC Parks Department focuses resources on racism appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes for National Review Online about a key issue the US Supreme Court will address in the weeks ahead. The outcome of the court’s deliberations could have a significant impact.

One of the most common arguments against the idea that the Constitution mandates birthright citizenship, even for the children of illegal immigrants, is that the relevant provision of the 14th Amendment was written to protect “the BABIES OF SLAVES” (to quote President Trump).

That was a principal purpose of the provision. But that doesn’t mean the provision doesn’t cover other children, too, as I wrote in a column about the issue a few months ago:

“The meaning of a law is, in the first place, not limited to what its authors mainly had in mind. The equal protection clause, also in the 14th Amendment, was motivated principally to ensure that state governments protected ex-slaves. Because it was written in general language, though, it extends to other groups and it doesn’t apply only to racial discrimination.”

The Trump administration is not challenging the idea that this part of the Constitution provides birthright citizenship to the children of almost all legal immigrants — which is to say, not just the children of slaves.

One reason the amendment was written without reference to the children of slaves: The people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment wanted also to protect black Americans who were born free in the U.S. These Americans had seen their rights and citizenship challenged for decades, with Dred Scott denying the possibility of citizenship to them. The drafters and ratifiers covered them by expressing a principle that went beyond the main example they had in mind, the children of freed slaves. So in figuring out how far the principle extends, it doesn’t get us very far to invoke that main example.

The post Birthright citizenship and the framers’ intent appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Editors at National Review Online question one piece of President Donald Trump’s approach to the Iran war.

He talked with passion and relish about the devastating U.S. attacks on Iranian military capabilities and threatened more to come, perhaps targeting the Iranian electricity grid and the country’s oil facilities if there isn’t a deal soon.

For all that Trump boasted about U.S. power and threatened to use it in even more fearsome ways, he adopted a posture of relative impotence regarding the Strait of Hormuz. He urged the Europeans to open it or, he said, it would open up naturally when the conflict ends.

This is not a trifling matter. Since its earliest years, the U.S. has regarded maintaining the freedom of the seas as a vital national interest.

We have also long rejected “excessive” maritime claims (which would include the imposition of transit fees) by coastal states. The U.S. recognizes that the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian and Omani waters but maintains that, under international law, they must be open to traffic, an uncontroversial argument — outside Tehran and other bandit lairs. We hear a great deal from Europeans about the importance they attach to international law. Now would be a good moment for them to show that they mean it.

As so often with President Trump, his handling of our European allies over the Iran war has included home truths, gratuitous insults, and profoundly dangerous ideas. The surge in the price of oil and certain other commodities caused by this war has been a windfall for the Kremlin. Denigrating NATO, as Trump has done — let alone threatening to leave it — adds further to Putin’s strategic haul. That is not in this country’s interest, and neither is suggesting that the U.S. might leave the Europeans to sort out the Strait of Hormuz for themselves.

The post Questioning Trump’s ‘Hormuz handoff’ appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Chris Talgo writes for RedState.com about the latest round of “No Kings” protests.

The mixed messaging, cognitive dissonance, and blatant hypocrisy on display at the latest round of “No Kings” protests in places like New York City reached epic proportions this past weekend.

If you were in New York City on Saturday during the third edition of the No Kings movement, you would have seen a smorgasbord of far-left groups aiming to sow the seeds of revolution in America.

You would have seen numerous flags adorned with the hammer and sickle. You would have been surrounded by collectivist swag and literature for sale, including copies of The Communist Manifesto. You would have seen banners with socialist slogans celebrating depraved monsters like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Worst of all, you would have been inundated with chants like, “There is only one solution — communist revolution.” 

The No Kings movement is a sham. Far from a grassroots movement, it is a highly coordinated, well-funded network of far-left groups that seek to replace America’s founding principles. 

On its website, No Kings states, “Throughout 2025, in the face of unprecedented attacks, millions of us joined together in our communities and held the largest single day of morally grounded, nonviolent direct actions by any movement in US history. Each time we show up, we disrupt President Trump’s attempts to rule through repression and remind the country, and the world, that people power is our path to a truly free America.”

For starters, I take umbrage with the claim that the 2025 No Kings rally was one of the most significant “movements” in American history. Honestly, that type of embellishment undermines the truly monumental strides made under the civil rights movement or the movement for women to gain the right to vote. 

Furthermore, it makes no sense because if the United States really were a monarchy with Donald Trump atop the throne, wouldn’t Trump just use his divine right as king to outlaw any and all pesky protests against his kingship?

The post Searching for coherence in ‘No Kings’ protest message appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Bob Hoge writes for RedState.com about a top banking executive’s recent warning.

The CEO of the world’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase head Jamie Dimon, appeared on Fox & Friends Tuesday and said he knows exactly why residents are fleeing blue states: progressive policies stink, they’re destructive, and they don’t work.

Any RedState reader already knows this, but apparently it’s news to the Left. Why, leftists seemingly ask, don’t our subjects like the rising crime, homelessness, high taxes, and insane housing costs we bring them? They should know what’s good for them.

Dimon said, yeah, not so much:

Jamie Dimon sounded off on high taxes and poor quality of life being major factors in the exodus of people and businesses from blue states.

“I tell people everyone’s got to compete, including cities, and for a city to compete, of course it’s quality of life, it’s your subways, it’s your hospitals,” Dimon said.

“But it’s also individual taxes, state taxes, corporate taxes, and it drives people out,” he continued.

Dimon compared blue states and red states, saying “all you have to do is look at California versus Nevada” and “New York versus Florida.”

“Look at California versus Nevada… New York versus Florida and there’s a huge exodus taking place. It’s not good for the city.”

“And people just make a mistake, ‘oh, just tax these people.’ But that’s the outcome. And very often people think they’re being moral by doing that, but they’re not. What they’re doing is they’re hurting your own city.”

Dimon is not everyone’s favorite banker — President Trump is suing him over JPMorgan’s debanking of his companies in 2021 — but it’s hard to argue against his points here.

Despite his strained relationship with the president, Dimon surprisingly backed the operations against Iran and said we should all be rooting for America’s success in bringing down the sadistic regime.

The post Dimon critiques blue-state policies appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Margot Cleveland writes for the Federalist about a significant legal development.

After more than two years of litigation, The Federalist successfully negotiated a deal with the State Department to end the lingering effects of the Global Engagement Center’s unconstitutional and ultra vires targeting of domestic media outlets and to ensure a future administration does not restart the censorship activities that flourished under the Biden Administration.

The Federalist and The Daily Wire filed suit against the State Department, its Global Engagement Center, and several officers and employees in December of 2023. The complaint filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a public interest firm committed to fighting the administrative state, alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press and also alleged the defendants exceeded their statutory authority, which was limited to foreign affairs.

Early Wednesday, attorneys representing The Federalist and The Daily Wire filed a Motion for Entry of a Consent Decree, along with a detailed Consent Decree which places significant limitations on the State Department’s ability to target speech — or fund tech companies which target speech — under the guise of fighting misinformation and disinformation. The Consent Decree includes an injunction that details activities that State Department, its employees, and its contractors, “shall take or not take .,,”

Among other things, the State Department and those acting on its behalf can no longer “request or recommend that third parties use electronic tools or technologies to knowingly or intentionally suppress, censor, demonetize, or downgrade constitutionally protected speech of Americans or domestic media outlets.” The State Department is also barred from funding, promoting, or assisting in the testing or development of so-called Countering Propaganda and Disinformation tools or technologies which seek to suppress, censor, demonetize, downgrade, or fact-check “the constitutionally protected speech of Americans or domestic media outlets.” 

The post Courtroom win against government censorship appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Jessica Costescu writes for the Washington Free Beacon about disturbing developments at a major Ivy League school.

Yale College’s Jewish enrollment is down from 16.4 percent in the 2010s to just 9.5 percent in 2024, a level comparable to the 1940s, when the Ivy League school imposed quotas aimed at excluding “alien” Jews from campus, according to data from the Yale Chaplain’s Office. Yale leaders said they aren’t concerned by the figures and that the school’s diminished Jewish community is “thriving.”

The comments from Yale College dean Pericles Lewis and University Chaplain Maytal Saltiel came in wake of a new report from the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance titled, “A Narrowing Gate: Jewish Enrollment at Harvard and Its Peers,” that identified the decline in the Jewish population at Yale as particularly troubling, given that Yale has increased the size of its undergraduate classes in recent years and has seen a decline in the number of Jewish undergraduates nonetheless.

While Lewis told the Yale Daily News that the school has a “thriving” Jewish community, he said the numbers would be “very hard to measure”—though that’s exactly what the university Chaplain’s Office does, with data tracing back to the 1940s.

Lewis also said that “So many students—like, I’m half Jewish—a lot of people might consider themselves Jewish but not answer the question in a particular way,” though the Chaplain’s office indicates that it accounts for that. “When students cite multiple religious identities, we count each student once (i.e., if a student identifies as Methodist and Muslim, they would be counted as 1/2 of a person in each category).”

The “Religious Diversity at Yale” survey found that 9.5 percent of undergraduate students identify as Jewish, a 42 percent decrease from the 16.4 percent of students who identified as Jewish in the 2010s and a 52 percent decrease from the 19.9 percent of students who identified as such in the 2000s.

The post Yale offers questionable picture of ‘thriving’ Jewish community appeared first on John Locke Foundation.

Editors at National Review Online assess the latest major US Supreme Court decision.

The power of government to regulate the professions, especially in medicine and law, has created a lot of levers to enforce conformity. That power can be exercised openly through lawmaking, and more subtly by delegating licensing and disciplinary powers to quasi-public cartels run by the professions themselves. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court struck a blow against the use of those powers to dictate orthodoxy and stifle disfavored opinions. Still more encouragingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ringing opinion attracted a lopsided 8–1 majority, with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.

Chiles arose from yet another effort by Colorado to ban dissent from “LBGTQ+” ideology, which was yet again defeated by a legal team from Alliance Defending Freedom. A state law bans licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors, on penalty of fines and loss of license. The law is flagrantly one-sided: It applies only to therapy that aims to resolve gender dysphoria or to reduce homosexual attraction, while permitting state-favored counseling in favor of gender transition and homosexuality. It is coercive and destructive of parental authority. …

… It is speech-specific: Unlike red-state bans on irreversible surgeries and puberty-blocking drugs, the law applies to purely talk-based therapies. And it is harmful as well: Most children and teens suffering gender dysphoria can outgrow the problem and learn to live in their bodies; talking through their problems can help.

The Court called this what it is: discrimination against a particular viewpoint. As Gorsuch wrote, “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” Even Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasized that “the case is textbook. The law distinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas—the one resisting, the other reflecting, the State’s own view of how to speak with minors about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The post Praising SCOTUS ruling against ‘ideological orthodoxy’ appeared first on John Locke Foundation.