After some 200 missiles… Congratulations to the Iranian regime…here is your success: a dead Palestinian from Gaza….idiots ❗️ pic.twitter.com/9jSy75YcfX — יוסף חדאד – Yoseph Haddad (@YosephHaddad) October 1, 2024 And then there’s this… You would think it is a joke, but it isn’t Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an interview with @cnnturk said that […]

VP debate turns into disaster for Democrats The post Walz Tanks VP Debate While Lying About Tanks appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM The environmental impact of the fashion industry is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, and California is leading the way in addressing the growing issue of textile waste. With the fast fashion cycle overwhelming consumers and landfills, California’s new law, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, could make the state the first in the nation to require manufacturers to assume responsibility for recycling the apparel and textiles they make. A growing environmental crisis The United States has seen an alarming growth in textile waste. Since 1960, the volume of discarded clothing and household textiles has increased tenfold, reaching more than 17 million tons by 2018. Surprisingly, 85 percent of textiles wind up in landfills, where they generate methane gas and release hazardous chemicals into the environment. Although over 95 percent of these materials—including textiles, yarns, and zippers—are recyclable, only a small percentage are ever reused. The rise of “fast fashion”—cheap, low-quality apparel intended for short-term use—has exacerbated the waste problem. The fashion industry currently accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions, surpassing international aviation and maritime shipping combined. As customers buy and discard apparel at record rates, the environmental consequences become impossible to ignore. A first-in-the-nation law California’s new Responsible Textile Recovery Act seeks to address this issue by moving the responsibility for textile recycling from consumers to manufacturers. Under this measure, which is now awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature, manufacturers of garments, beds, towels, and other textiles must establish and support a statewide system for reusing, mending, and recycling their products. This landmark legislation aims to establish a more sustainable, circular economy for textiles. “Since the 1960s, the amount of textile waste we generate has skyrocketed, and our current systems just can’t keep up,” said State Senator Josh Newman, who sponsored the bill. “This bill is about making producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products.” If passed, the proposal will allow California residents to drop off unwanted or damaged clothing and textiles at specified collection places, such as thrift stores, charities, or other easily accessible locations, for sorting and recycling. Companies will be responsible for establishing a non-profit company to handle the recycling system by 2026, with full implementation scheduled for 2028. A collaborative effort Environmental organizations, waste management specialists, and stores such as Ikea, Everlane, and Goodwill have all expressed strong support for Newman’s plan. Over 150 organizations have supported the legislation, which is viewed as a significant step toward minimizing the environmental effects of the fashion industry. “Sustainable fashion is about more than just reducing waste—it’s about changing how we produce, consume, and dispose of clothing,” said Randi Marshall, head of sustainability at H&M Americas. The company, which has worked on comparable recycling schemes in France and the Netherlands, is already familiar with the procedure and keen to support the legislation in California. Economic and environmental benefits Supporters of the Responsible Textile Recovery Act say that the law will minimize waste while also creating economic opportunities. The bill is estimated to create more than 1,000 green jobs, ranging from textile sorting and recycling to program infrastructure management. Furthermore, it will encourage manufacturers to implement greener, less wasteful processes, resulting in more sustainable designs. Critics have expressed fears that the measure may raise consumer expenses, but Newman believes that any rise will be minor. He predicts that the additional cost to producers will be less than ten cents per garment. “The environmental costs of textile waste far outweigh the small financial costs of recycling,” stated Mr. Smith. Dr. Joanne Brasch, advocacy director for the California Product Stewardship Council, which co-sponsored the bill, agrees. “We’re going to pay for textile waste one way or another—either through higher taxes and garbage fees or by addressing the problem at its source,” she said. “This legislation offers a proactive, long-term solution.” Learning from global leaders California is not the first to pass legislation addressing textile waste. Several countries, like France and the Netherlands, have already implemented comparable regulations. France, for example, enacted a textile recycling law in 2007. At the time, just 18 percent of the country’s textile waste was diverted for reuse or recycling. Today, that figure has grown to more than 39 percent. “We’ve learned a lot from countries like France,” explained Brasch. “We want to make sure California’s program is as effective and replicable as possible, so other states can follow suit.” Global impact of fashion waste Aside from the environmental impact, textile waste has major societal consequences. Much of the world’s abandoned apparel wind up in foreign markets, primarily in impoverished countries. Nations such as Ghana, which imports up to 15 million used clothing every week, are trying to manage the garbage. These garments often end up in landfills or pollute local ecosystems, resulting in a process known as “waste colonialism.” Organizations such as the Or Foundation advocate for extended producer responsibility schemes, such as California’s new measure, to help put an end to this damaging behavior. The goal of requiring corporations to handle their own textile waste is to reduce the amount of clothing that ends up in landfills in poorer countries. A new era in fashion The Responsible Textile Recovery Act is a big step forward in decreasing the garment industry’s environmental and social effects. If successful, it could serve as a model for other states and countries attempting to handle their own textile waste issues. As Newman noted, “We have an opportunity to lead by example, not just in the U.S., but globally.” California is paving the way for a more sustainable future by creating a system that holds producers accountable—one that reduces clothing waste, increases recycling, and makes the fashion sector more circular.The post California takes on fast fashion waste: a new bill puts the onus on brands to recycle  first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene’s trail of destruction, the residents of Asheville, North Carolina, are in a dire predicament. Despite being more than 300 miles inland from the coast, the storm devastated this lively mountain community, leaving a trail of wreckage, power outages, and displaced citizens. As officials scurry to distribute supplies, the need for assistance is critical. Here are a few things you can do right now to help the victims of Hurricane Helene. 1. Donate to reputable organizations If you’re not in the immediate area but want to make a meaningful impact, financial donations to disaster relief funds are one of the best ways to provide support. Several groups are now focusing on assisting victims of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. The United Way Helps NC Fund is exclusively focused on aiding residents in the aftermath of this disaster. Donations go directly to critical necessities like food and water. Contributions can be made online, or checks can be sent to United Way of NC at 1130 Kildaire Farm Rd, Suite 100, Cary, NC 27511. In addition, the Red Cross continues to be a reliable disaster relief organization, assisting individuals in need with shelter, food, and other necessities. In a statement, Duke Energy mentioned that thousands of workers are “working tirelessly to assess damage and make repairs,” but the road to recovery will be long. Many residents trying to reconstruct their lives, and your donation can help relieve the load. Local groups, such as Manna Food Bank, which assists needy populations in Western North Carolina, have also suffered significant consequences. The hurricane devastated the food bank, and it is looking for donations to help it get back to serving the community as quickly as possible. 2. Foster an animal in need For those who live in or near North Carolina and want to provide direct assistance, fostering a displaced animal is a great way to help. The Asheville Humane Society is working feverishly to locate temporary homes for animals affected by the hurricane. Local shelters are overcrowded, and fostering a pet could help alleviate some of the burden. Even if you are unable to foster, donations to assist cover the costs of food, transportation, and materials are much appreciated. Pets are often overlooked in the commotion of natural catastrophes, but this is a simple method to make a significant difference for both the animals and their worried owners. 3. Donate essential supplies Local businesses and breweries in North Carolina have stepped up to gather much-needed goods for the Asheville community. Bottled water, diapers, new socks, toiletries, and underwear are among the most important products, all of which are in limited supply.  Wooden Robot Brewery, a local organization, posted a thorough list of the most needed items and drop-off locations to Instagram. They stressed the importance of these donations, stating, “Right now we’re urging for emergency donations—the waters, the baby needs, hydration packets, toiletries, new socks, and underwear—the things you notice FIRST when they’re gone.” If you can gather supplies or drop off donations, this is a perfect chance to assist families who have lost everything in the storm. 4. Offer to deliver meals or spread the word With many communities still without power or internet, communication has become a major impediment to ensuring that everyone has access to food and supplies. Organizations like the Salvation Army are providing hot meals to those in need, but with limited communication, it is critical to spread the information. Posting information on social media or informing affected residents about where they may get food is critical right now. In addition to bigger organizations, local businesses are stepping forward to assist. Indian Aroma Bistro in Hendersonville, for example, is providing boxed lunches and is looking for volunteers to assist with their delivery to people in need. If you live locally, helping out in this way might make a big difference for families who are struggling to get food. While Hurricane Helene has caused widespread devastation, the people of Asheville and North Carolina are resilient, and recovery is possible with the support of those both near and far. Whether you can offer money, time, or materials, every contribution helps the community get one step closer to rebuilding.The post 4 immediate ways to help Hurricane Helene victims in North Carolina first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Don’t let your mistakes discourage you. Instead, look for what God is teaching you through them and go in new directions. Be willing to learn from your shortcomings and your mistakes will mature you!

Recently, as my husband and I chatted with a newlywed couple, the wife remarked, “We need to hang out with your family soon as a form of birth control for us!” She was referring to our four kids, and despite the discomfort I felt at her words, I laughed. Looking back, I wish I’d said, “I hope hanging out with us would do quite the opposite—kids are such a blessing!” I missed the opportunity. While joking about kids may seem inconsequential in the moment, this sort of talk points to a larger cultural trend toward devaluing children by depicting them as burdensome and annoying. As Christians, we need to pause and reflect on how we speak about our children. Do our comments about parenting and our children’s struggles reflect Christ’s heart or the hot takes of our culture? Under the guise of seeking comic relief from parenting’s challenges, could we be sinning by how we talk about children and their sin? Consider Why You’re Laughing As a mom of four children under 4, I’m often targeted by my social media algorithms with parenting reels and ads. Most are jokes about how hard being a mom is, how annoying children are, and how much parents deserve a break. Do our comments about parenting and the struggles of our children reflect Christ’s heart or the hot takes of our culture? At first, I chuckled at the relatability of kids throwing fits and moms making witty jokes about the fatigue and challenges of parenting. We all need a good laugh sometimes. But laughing at the expense of another person can be a way of disguising slander, scoffing, and gossip. Consider Paul’s commands about our speech in Ephesians: Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (4:29) Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (5:4) Instead of speaking words that tear down, we’re to use words that build up. Instead of making crude jokes, we’re to offer thanksgiving. What a radical way to think about my speech at the end of a long, tiring day of parenting. Choosing words of gratitude instead of coping by complaining doesn’t come naturally, but by the Holy Spirit’s power, we can grow in this area. And it’s worth the effort. Consider Who’s Listening What might happen if we as Christians replaced our negative joking about how hard parenting is with words of gratitude for our children and the God who created them? Here are three groups who’d benefit from this shift in words and attitude. 1. Our Children Consider what our kids internalize by hearing our joking and complaints about them. Even when we think they don’t understand, children often pick up on more than we give them credit for. We’re wise to consider how our critical jokes influence what they believe about themselves and how they behave. Furthermore, our children begin to believe and act according to the things we say about them—and so do we. Jokes that seem harmless may plant seeds of discontent and ingratitude that take root in our hearts and influence how we view and interact with our kids. 2. People Who Don’t Have Children America is experiencing a substantial decline in the birth rate, down 20 percent since 2007. While there’s no definitive explanation, there’s a lot of speculation about why it has fallen so dramatically, including the growing idea that children hinder career or life goals, are a financial burden, and require too much sacrifice. It’s not hard to imagine why childless people have this perspective when parents circulate these very ideas in jokes about their kids. Look no further than social media videos of kids throwing tantrums with captions like “Paid 5K to come to Disney World for my kid to act like this,” or pictures of a baby who looks different from her mother captioned, “I gave up my body and my life just for my baby to look like my husband?!” We need to consider the way our jokes and posts can influence people who don’t have kids. The point isn’t to make parenting seem easy and perfect but to demonstrate it can be a great source of joy and blessing, well worth the effort and challenges. 3. Fellow Parents If we more often shared the joys of parenting with fellow parents rather than only commiserating about the frustrations, perhaps we’d all find more joy in it. It’s a simple concept: how we talk about things influences how we view them. The more we lean into—and remind one another of—the truth from the Lord that children are a blessing (Ps. 127:3–5), that children have value (Matt. 19:14; Ps. 139:13), and that children are a delight (Prov. 29:17), the more we can be joyful in parenting and thankful for our kids, even on days when tantrums are long and tempers are short. Consider What You Share and Say Our culture prioritizes ease and comfort, assuming difficulty and discomfort should be avoided whenever possible. But as believers, we know that just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. The hardship parents face in teaching, correcting, and disciplining is only part of the deeply fulfilling work of raising children. Just because something is hard doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. So let’s think carefully before we post that video of our child disobeying or text that meme complaining about motherhood. When we’re in a situation where parents are mocking their children, let’s pray for the Holy Spirit’s help to steer the conversation toward the blessings and joys our children bring. May our words be less focused on getting a laugh and more focused on giving grace to those who hear (Eph. 4:29).

In The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America, Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer explore the unique political and legal circumstances that resulted in the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade. They detail the political twists and turns leading to that decision and are surprisingly sympathetic to the motivations and work of pregnancy centers and their volunteers. Ultimately, however, the book’s authors make the same error as did Roe: they assume that Dobbs must be wrong because access to abortion is necessary for women to flourish. Dias and Lerer, both correspondents for The New York Times, begin their book in a surprising place. They define abortion not according to the revisionist trope of the day—a sterile health care procedure devoid of moral implications—but by its Latin root, abortire. Far from aseptic, abortire is pregnant with meaning. Its definition: “to disappear, to be lost, to miscarry” (preface). Abortire brings into stark relief what happens when a child is aborted—she disappears, she’s lost. She’ll never have a chance to take her first step, to dissolve into giggles, or to find joy in small things. And her mom will never have a chance to delight in her God-given uniqueness. Abortire might also describe an ideology that has lost its way. It’s a creed that sold out to the idea that a woman’s worth can be ascertained from her W-2 or the initials beside her name. The post-Dobbs world offers America a chance to do better. Roe Was Wrong There’s little debate that Roe was wrongly decided as a matter of constitutional law. Countless pro-abortion scholars have criticized the decision. For example, in 1973 (the year Roe was decided), Yale Law professor John Hart Ely said the case was “not constitutional law” at all and that it hardly gave any “sense of an obligation to try to be.” Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe referred to Roe’s reasoning as a “verbal smokescreen.” In his dissent in the case, justice Byron White described the majority decision as an “exercise in raw judicial power.” Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe for interrupting the democratic process. Given that a right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution, why the staying power? Why did Roe endure for nearly 50 years? Dias and Lerer argue abortion was “bound up with the story of the advancement of women for the past century” (13). They noted that Roe was “hailed as the crowning achievement of liberal feminism, instantly reshaping decades of law and life to follow” and that the decision “changed how millions of women and girls imagined their lives, offering the ability to control their reproductive futures” (13). The post-Dobbs world offers America a chance to do better. They’re not the only ones to think this way. Roe’s seven male authors agreed. They worried that motherhood “forced” on women “a distressful life and future.” The plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld Roe’s fundamental right to abortion because they viewed abortion as necessary for women to achieve social and economic equality. Even today, when contraception is widely available with consumer cost and failure rate approaching zero, the three dissenters in Dobbs argued that Roe must be preserved because abortion is necessary for women to flourish. Roe Was Based on an Impoverished View of Womanhood These views buy into the false narrative that women need abortion to obtain equality. But as 240 women scholars and professionals explained in an amicus brief filed in Dobbs, women are fully capable of being mothers and having fulfilling lives. There’s evidence that abortion forces women to become more like men. At a recent White Dudes for Harris event, the U.S. secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, pushed Kamala Harris for president because “men are more free” when abortion is easily accessible. He said the quiet part out loud, acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, abortion isn’t all about a woman’s choice. Indeed, most women who have an abortion don’t do so from a position of empowerment. One survey performed by the Human Coalition showed the vast majority of women who obtained an abortion said they’d have chosen to parent if circumstances were different. In another survey, two-thirds of women were ambivalent about their abortion. Nearly a quarter said their abortion was either coerced or unwanted. In addition, an astounding 60 percent of women said they’d have preferred to give birth if they’d had greater emotional support or financial security. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute confirms these numbers. It recently published a study showing that 73 percent of women said they chose abortion for economic reasons, at least in part. Yet another study showed that more than half of women who had an abortion said they’re unsure they made the right choice and that many suffer mental and physical consequences. A mere 4 percent said they felt more in control of their lives post-abortion. These statistics are heartbreaking because they suggest many women have an abortion because they believe they have no other option. Paternalistic Solutions Abortion makes pregnancy a woman’s problem, as Buttigieg’s comments reinforce. Ryan Anderson argues in Tearing Us Apart that having abortion as an inexpensive option allows for a culture that blames women for having children. The accessibility of abortion on demand undermines the motivation to meet the emotional and financial needs of pregnant mothers. They could have sought an abortion, after all. Take one example. The elite law firms where I once worked rushed to provide abortion to their employees when Dobbs was decided. They offered to fly women to states where abortion is legal, promising employees the freedom to end an unborn life. There was nary a word about free diapers, paid time off, or affordable childcare. The message was clear: Women attorneys are most profitable to the firm when they’re free from other responsibilities. Yet Dias and Lerer identify the fundamental issue involved in the debate over abortion. It isn’t just about access to abortion but about “what it means to be a woman in America” (preface). There’s no question the world women faced in the 1970s needed to change. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor graduated third in her class from Stanford Law School (behind chief justice William Rehnquist, her once-suitor). Her job prospects: legal secretary. The answer to this—which Dias and Lerer say became part of America’s identity—was given by seven men (many of them elderly) on the Supreme Court. Those justices viewed abortion as necessary to prevent the distressing life of motherhood. That view is as impoverished as it is paternalistic. Dobbs Is Born The political twists and turns that Dias and Lerer painstakingly detail show an unusual convergence of events. Donald Trump was an unexpected nominee and then an unexpected president. He published a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. And he used that list. He appointed three justices committed to the original meaning of the Constitution. Meanwhile, single mom turned nurse turned legislator Becky Currie sponsored and passed a Mississippi law that prohibited abortion (with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life) after 15 weeks. The only abortion clinic in the state challenged that law in federal court. Mississippi elected pro-life Lynn Fitch as attorney general, who then hired Scott Stewart, an experienced appellate lawyer and former clerk to justice Clarence Thomas, as her solicitor general. Fitch and her team courageously asked the Supreme Court to not only limit but overrule Roe. And then the Supreme Court actually did away with Roe. Dias and Lerer blame the downfall of Roe on a conservative conspiracy. Others might call this remarkable series of events divine intervention. Dias and Lerer suggest it was somehow wrong for pro-life advocates to urge their elected officials to nominate and confirm originalist jurists to the Supreme Court. But the political power to nominate and confirm is the only meaningful check on justices who are appointed for life. Roe wrongly constitutionalized abortion. Dobbs returned the issue to the people. That’s called democracy. Challenge for the Church Tragically, the number of abortions has increased after the Dobbs decision. According to a survey by Care Net (an organization of 1,100 pregnancy centers), 4 in 10 women who have an abortion attend church at least somewhat regularly. These women paint a disappointing picture of their church experience. Only 7 percent said they discussed their decision with anyone at church. Three-fourths said the church had “no influence” on their decision to abort. Only 41 percent of churchgoing women believed churches were prepared to help them with an unplanned pregnancy. And nearly two-thirds believed the church would react judgmentally toward a single mother. If women don’t feel supported by the church, they’ll often go to abortion facilities. If women don’t feel supported by the church, they’ll often go to abortion facilities. Christians should lament the rise in abortion after the fall of Roe. We can (rightly) blame the Biden-Harris administration for promoting easy access to high-risk abortion drugs by mail. But the Care Net survey tells us this story is incomplete. We must do more. We must tell women they matter more than their mistakes. That’s the gospel message, after all. And we must assure them the church will stand beside them as they choose life, affirm their bravery, and promise to provide the village it takes to raise their children. The good news is that the church is well positioned. Most women choose abortion because they don’t see any other way, and many of these women attend church at least monthly. Dias and Lerer end where they begin, with the conclusion that the post-Dobbs reality “will define American women . . . for years to come” (preface). One can only hope they’re right, but not in the negative way they mean. That reality should be one where every woman is valued for her inherent worth and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to choose life. The Fall of Roe is a reminder that if the church operates out of the truth of the gospel, the hope of Christ, and the joy of community, the new reality can empower women.