fox files

We’re waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule regarding what’s happening in Mississippi. If the states suddenly have the ability to decide whether abortion will be legal or not, California is already preparing to be the liberal savior.

Medical tourism is already a booming industry – particularly in countries where medical costs are considerably lower than in the U.S. It allows people to take a vacation and have a medical procedure done. In many instances, these trips are cheap because a person gets to have a specific medical procedure done for a fraction of what it would cost in the U.S. And, the best part is that they don’t have to convince their doctors that they need it because there are fewer medical standards in place in other countries, such as Thailand, Brazil, and elsewhere.

California is thinking about how they can cash in on abortions in a very similar manner. They’ll start up an abortion tourism industry where they can invite women from all over the country to get their abortions in the glitz and glamour of California.

The billboards that are sure to pop up will advertise such things as “Conservatives preventing you from aborting an unwanted fetus? Book your abortion appointment in Sunny California…”

It’s really quite disgusting when you think about it.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, California is already dreaming about the revenue streams. They’ve already established a 45-part proposal to expand abortion accessibility, which means that this was likely in the works long before Mississippi’s abortion issue made it to the Supreme Court.

The Associated Press tweeted a piece of breaking news to say that the proposal “would include paying for travel, lodging and procedures for people from other states who want to have an abortion.”

Imagine going through all of this just to commit murder. This is no longer about a woman who feels as though she has no other options and runs into a clinic to “fix” the situation. This is about a woman planning a vacation so that she can kill the fetus growing inside of her without feeling any guilt. She can be pampered before and after the procedure so that it is easier to accept the murderous act.

Amy Coney Barrett has been quick to point out that abortion isn’t the only option, especially against the argument of “I can’t afford to raise a child.” That’s what the safe haven laws are for – mothers can carry the child to term and place the baby on the doorstep of any fire station in the nation without any questions being asked.

Still, it’s easier to simply commit murder. And California has been quick to say that they don’t really focus on the “viability” of the fetus. 12 weeks, 20 weeks, 36 weeks…as long as they can make some money off of it, they don’t really care what age the fetus is.

Newsom told ABC News that “we’ll be a sanctuary.” Ahh, well, there’s a big surprise. The state is already a sanctuary to all of the illegal aliens who cross into the country illegally and commit crimes upon entering. Of course they’d want to be a sanctuary to all of the women who think it would be a great idea to simply murder their unborn children rather than focusing on a) birth control or b) carrying the child to term.

This isn’t about the women. This is about profit. And as Prudence Robertson, a spokesperson for the Susan B. Anthony list explained, “Extreme pro-abortion leaders in California are marching in lockstep with the profit-driven abortion lobby, working to convince women that they need access to abortion to succeed.”

The fact of the matter is that many so-called Republicans are really democrats in disguise while NO democrats are EVER Republicans. Another fact is that while many problems are not solved by Republicans, all of the problems are created by democrats. And it’s important to never forget that while Republicans believe dems are just people with bad ideas, democrats believe that Republicans are just bad people.

Period. End of story. Full stop.

Adoption of a Chinese-style social credit score across the West seems more like a matter of “when” rather than “if” at this point. The pandemic has accelerated this tendency, with people in many parts of the United States having become accustomed to presenting their vaccination papers in order to sit down in a restaurant or enter a movie theater. Other countries are further along the curve, with QR-coded cell phone passports required for travel, shopping, work, and public life in general. 

But the effort to aggregate personal data into a usable form of social control is taking place on multiple fronts. Credit cards—ubiquitous, trusted, and pre-linked to essential data sources— are an obvious platform upon which to build the new system. We see it happening all around us, but it’s all being rolled out slowly so as not to frighten the prey. 

Doconomy is a Swedish tech company that uses its proprietary “Åland Index” to allow consumers to track their individual environmental harm based on various lifestyle factors, including travel and consumption. The company partnered with MasterCard to produce the DO card, which “enables the cardholder to track and measure its carbon footprint for each purchase and to compensate for its impact day by day.” As opposed to standard green-branded credit cards, however, which use a few pennies per purchase to buy carbon offsets, or contribute to enviro-oriented non-profits, the DO Black card tallies the carbon footprint of one’s every purchase and cuts you off when you have hit your limit.  

“In other words,” boasts the company, “it’s the first credit card ever to stop you from overspending based on the level of CO2 emissions generated by your consumption.” The card sets a “carbon spending limit” based on Paris Climate Accord targets and issues a “Transaction Denied!” warning when you try to overspend. 

Much like the Paris Accord itself, of course, the limit is arbitrary and voluntary, and doubtlessly can be overridden. The type of well-heeled consumers who would carry the DO card—which is composed of biodegradable Poly Lactic Acid instead of plastic—surely aren’t counting on its credit limit to buy their staples; carbon frugality is a luxury only the rich can enjoy. The DO card doesn’t seem to have caught on in a big way yet, but a hard carbon spending limit tied to personal consumption certainly sounds like something that the Regime would be happy to impose. Look for it soon. 

Credit card companies track debt and payment levels to generate credit scores, which banks and other lenders use to determine how much to charge consumers to borrow money in the form of interest rates. FICO scores—the industry standard—can also be consulted by employers and landlords to determine, as a kind of shorthand, how reliable their potential workers or tenants are. These scores thus already serve as a kind of social credit index, except they are still largely voluntary. No one has to maintain lines of consumer debt in order to build up one’s score; it just makes it harder to finance large purchases if you don’t. 

In our age of racial obsession, the disparate impact of bad FICO scores has attracted the attention of the equity and diversity mob. Blacks and Latinos, it appears, tend to have worse credit, for a variety of reasons, some of which are said to be rooted in racism. In an effort to remedy this problem, advocates aren’t demanding that credit scores be less central to evaluating credit-worthiness; rather, they want an expansion of amount and kind of data that is fed into the algorithms to determine the scores.  

The Biden Administration backs the creation of a Public Credit Registry (PCR) under the aegis of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to replace the private credit reporting agencies that currently control the market. According to a report from Demos, the leftist policy group with ties to the Democratic Party, “the public credit registry will develop new algorithms for predicting creditworthiness with a goal of minimizing disparate racial impact.” The PCR will include rental history and utility payments, among other data sources, “when these data have been shown to be predictive and to minimize racial disparities.” 

Moving consumer credit reporting onto a federal-run platform sounds worrisome even if you aren’t a hard-core conspiracist, so couching it in the language of minimizing racial disparities is a good way to baffle surveillance concerns. But it’s hard to escape the nefarious implications to privacy that the Public Credit Registry represents. 

Society is so awash in personal data that it must drive planners and experts crazy that so much of it is going to waste. That’s why we discover from the New York Times that “a study analyzing medical records and consumer credit reports for more than 80,000 Medicare beneficiaries showed that seniors who eventually received a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease were significantly more likely to have delinquent credit card payments than those who were demographically similar but never received such diagnoses. They also were more likely to have subprime credit scores.” Who’d have thought that credit scores would be such an important indicator of an unrelated health risk? Let’s start churning through all that data immediately, in the interests of public health, of course. 

None of this proves that we are heading toward a Chinese-style system in the next calendar year. But taken together it certainly indicates that we’re going that way sooner or later. 

Could the founders have imagined, in 1776, that two and a half centuries later, American parents would face the prospect of losing custody of their children for failing to make them eunuchs in the service of an ideological industry dictated by state-sponsored drag queens and drug cartels?

The question is ridiculous on its face. It is a long-held precept in the Western world, stretching back even before the dawn of the liberal state, that parents have a natural dominion over their children and that, in general, parents have the right to make personal, medical, educational, and religious decisions for their children without government interference unless there is proof of extreme abuse or neglect.

Parental rights were among the many implicit natural rights that Hamilton warned against enumerating in the American Constitution. In Federalist 84, he argues that the act of explicitly but vaguely defining certain rights would leave them subject to misinterpretation or violation. Hamilton additionally noted that if you accounted for some, you would have to account for all, because those left unaccounted for would fall in danger of being forgotten altogether.

Proving Hamilton’s point, the American Left has revealed in no uncertain terms this year that they indeed regard natural rights––especially those not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights––as government-administered privileges to be granted or rescinded based on bureaucratic whim. What was taken for granted as common sense for so much of American history (that children are natural subjects of their parents, and that parents are the best guarantors of their children’s health and happiness) has been lost. Against nature, children are understood under the current regime to be, most fundamentally, wards of the state. By this logic, children as state subjects are optimized for society when all aspects of their care are entrusted to officially credentialed, state-sanctioned subject matter experts such as teachers, social workers, and public health bureaucrats. Cooperative parents are unpaid functionaries. Even mildly resistant parents are threats to the system.

The central tenet of the current default attitude is part of what Patrick Deneen identifies as the “false anthropology” of liberalism in Why Liberalism Failed. That is, the notion that human beings are divisible both on the internal personal level (viewing components of the self as discrete entities) and the familial level (viewing deep familial bonds between humans as essentially fungible). This is the core problem for Americans, both personally and politically. Parents have bought into the idea that they need to outsource the raising of children for the sake of perceived higher goods (financial security, career optimization, or so-called “socialization”). The government is attempting to enshrine this concession as law.

This conflagration of public and private atomization leads to deep identity-based disorder in private and in public. For example, children of the American public school system are failing. Individually, they lack a sense of purpose, which they would find through the unity of heart and mind that a true and better education would aim to provide. Collectively, they lack the sense of belonging that deep connection to family, history, and nationhood also tend to provide. Instead of examining their humanity in any meaningful sense, they bounce from subject to subject with no unifying principle of understanding except for the attitude that the old white men who came up with these various subjects are irredeemably evil. Illiteracy abounds. Mental illness abounds.

Children who study under the direction of their parents, even without any official teaching credential, fare much better by every metric.

Last week, Senator Josh Hawley’s office released “a Parents’ Bill of Rights, for every mom and dad in America.” His “proposal would guarantee them the seat at the table they deserve, one that no bureaucrat – or political party – can take away.” Hawley demands transparency, in classroom content and in how schools spend tax dollars, and that parents may speak at school board meetings without fear of reprisal.

A program to make explicit what the founders took for granted—that the Christian family is the moral core of civilization—is needed to fight back, but relying on liberal mechanisms to fight a liberal cause will be a tricky landscape to navigate. I hesitate to criticize Hawley’s approach too soon, primarily because it’s the most ambitious thing we’ve seen from a Republican since the Hays Code. But Hawley’s program, in focusing exclusively on public education, already treats parental rights too disjointedly. Of course, education is where the battle is being fought, and is thus a good and important place to to start. But the parental bill of rights, if we are to make one, cannot peddle exclusively in education because that is just one aspect of the culture’s sweeping attack on familial sovereignty. Parents’ dominion over their children is holistic, not discrete.

A parents’ bill of rights must be more expansive, and should attempt to encapsulate the whole picture of parenthood both in terms of dominion over children, responsibilities for children, and parents’ right and responsibility to defend the family against the worst excesses of the tyranny du jour: globo-homo-techno-consumer-capitalism. Parent’s rights should aim to reclaim parental authority in the public arena, not just over Department of Education apparatchiks, but also Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the entertainment industry, especially pornography. The promise to punish tyranny, actually, is the most promising aspect of Hawley’s bill. He writes: “In addition to writing them in law, Congress also needs to give these parental rights teeth. Where any of these rights are infringed, parents should be able to sue to enforce them. If schools or districts refuse to cooperate, their federal funding should be on the chopping block.” Imagine if similar suits were made possible for parents whose children accessed pornography due to lax authentication systems and targeted marketing campaigns.

Still, we have to wonder, as Hamilton did, whether enumerating parents’ rights in this way, even if we are to be as expansive and detailed as possible, ultimately plants the seeds of an even more dramatic violation of those rights in the future. One need not look further than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to see just how those explications have since been used to discriminate on the basis of race, this time against whites.

Recalcitrant parents should keep Hamilton’s warning in their back pocket as they righteously proceed apace. Inaction in the face of this deep moral crisis is not an option, and as Alinsky wrote, using the language and habits of the enemy in order to twist their arm can be a very effective method of subversion. Make them live up to their own rules. Nevertheless, we cannot rest on the hope that even under duress, a regime dedicated to individual rights with an improper conception of the individual can re-embrace the family unit as the rightful anchor of society. We must be as vigilant as the activists who killed common sense in the first place. We must do what’s possible with what’s in front of us—while always preparing for what may come.