What You Can Do to Fight Sex Trafficking

January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. There are an estimated 20 to 30 million human trafficking victims in the world today, with an estimated 4.5 million of those forcibly involved in sex trafficking. In the U.S., an estimated 640,000 are being trafficked for sex.

These numbers are profoundly disturbing, and it can be tempting to feel discouraged that ordinary citizens like us are powerless to help these victims and to help stop the demand for paid sex. In reality, there are a number of ways that all of us can help in the fight. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation and Fight the New Drug have both published a list of practical ways we can all join the cause. Here is a brief summary of what you can do:

1. Do Not View or Pay for Porn

As we have written about previously, porn and sex trafficking are inseparably linked. Each click of pornography creates a demand for more pornography and brings in a profit to the industry. The demand causes traffickers, pimps, and those involved in the sex industry to abuse their victims by filming them in sex acts.

2. Learn How to Identify Potential Victims and Report Suspicious Activity

If you think you see suspicious activity happening wherever you are, be sure you have learned about what to look for. The Department of Homeland Security has published Indicators of Human Trafficking—be sure to look for these warning signs particularly in airports, gas stations, rest stops, and hotels. If you think you see something suspicious, call local law enforcement, or you can contact the 24-hour National Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888.

3. Use a New App to Take Pictures of Your Hotel Room

Hotel rooms are a hotspot for sex trafficking. Victims are often advertised online through pictures taken of them in hotel rooms. As Fight the New Drug has written on, there is a new app called TraffickCam that catalogs details of different hotel rooms like wallpaper and furniture to help create a database of identifiers, which can then be used by TraffickCam’s algorithm to match images of sex trafficking victims that will help law enforcement identify the possible locations of victims.

4. Participate in Online Activism

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE) has organized a number of ways that you can participate in online activism. Here are two:

  • Joining NCSE’s #TACKLEDEMAND social media campaign before the Super Bowl is a way to bring awareness about the problem of large commercial sporting events being used by sex traffickers and buyers for sexual exploitation.
  • Netflix is producing a show called “Baby” that normalizes the sexual exploitation of young teenagers by portraying it as a kind of “edgy” coming of age story. You can protest this repulsive show by sending an email or Facebook message to Netflix executives demanding that they stop producing it.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLE: Public School Kids Get Assembly on Sex Changes

Public School Kids Get Assembly on Sex Changes

By Cathy Ruse, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Legal Studies

Amy Ellis Nutt

A Northern Virginia public school held a school-wide assembly before Christmas break featuring transgender crusader Amy Ellis Nutt. George Mason High School in the City of Falls Church brought in Nutt, a Washington Post reporter, to lecture students on her book Becoming Nicole, about a boy who “identified” as a girl as a toddler, had his puberty suppressed as a child, and was castrated as a teenager.

Nutt’s lecture hit all the usual notes. Your gender is “assigned at birth” by people who might get it wrong. Toddlers can be transgender. Moray eels change sex and female reef fish produce sperm when there are no males. “Gender is a spectrum,” everyone must get “comfortable” with new gender language that is “changing every day.” Asking a biological boy to use the teachers’ rather than the girls’ restroom is “bullying.”

The full assembly can be viewed on YouTube:

The sponsor of the event was the Falls Church Education Foundation.

Did the school make plain to the students that they could decline to attend? That’s not clear. In her presentation, Nutt quipped: “Thank you for coming, although I know you’re probably required to be here.”

Nor is it clear whether parents were fully informed about the assembly in advance. At least one shocked George Mason teacher, who remains anonymous, says parents were not.

What does seem clear is that this public school will not hold another school-wide assembly featuring other views on the issue: such as first-person accounts of the negative consequences of “transitioning,” health warnings from pediatricians and other medical experts, or condemnation from the feminist community, from which the term “female erasure” has sprung to describe the transgender program.

Transgender ideology in children is extremely controversial, not least because so many children who experience gender dysphoria later desist and accept their natal biology. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) as many as 98% of boys and 88% of girls will “grow out of” their gender dysphoria and accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

There is no medical or psychological test to show which 2% of those boys will persist in their gender dysphoria as young adults. Protocols that encourage school-wide affirmation of every case of gender dysphoria could impede the overwhelming majority of children from accepting their natal biology, as well as sow confusion in other vulnerable children.

There has been a spate of articles in recent weeks on the phenomenon of “rapid onset” gender dysphoria in teen girls, thought to be a “social contagion” like anorexia 30 years ago. Details of these cases reported by therapists are heartbreaking.

At the end of the talk, Nutt was asked two student questions, written on index cards.

“What is gender dysphoria and how does the transgender community respond to the idea that they are glorifying the mental health condition known as gender dysphoria?”

That was a good question, and evidence that at least one student at George Mason has held on to his critical thinking skills.

Nutt’s answer was not good: “Gender dysphoria is not a mental health condition,” she said, continuing:

It is included in the DSM, which is the bible of mental illnesses, of psychiatrists, but only because gender dysphoria isn’t the inability or confusion of a transgender child to understand why they are the way they are, it’s the failure for [sic] other people to understand that. It’s the confusion that comes because of the cultural misconceptions and not being able to fit into that.

So a person is diagnosed because other people are confused? It’s in “the bible of mental illnesses” because it’s a healthy condition that the culture doesn’t understand? Now I am confused.

The DSM defines gender dysphoria in children as “clinically significant distress” from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender” manifested by, among other things, “a strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.”

The ICD – the International Classification of Diseases – calls it a “childhood disorder” characterized by “persistent and intense distress.” Diagnosis requires “a profound disturbance of the normal gender identity.”

If Nutt is trying to dismiss their distress as a cultural condition, she’s freelancing.

The final question was also a good one: “Did Nicole undergo reassignment surgery and if so was there any risk to it?”

Nutt’s answer was bad, and sort of creepy. “Yes. She was 17 at the time…I was there.”

“It was not the most important thing…but it was the last thing that she needed to do,” said Nutt.

“What was important for her early on was to have her puberty suppressed as a child, so that she knew what she really wanted.”

Puberty-blockers are serious business. Puberty suppression and cross-sex hormones can stunt a person’s growth and render him completely infertile, never able to have genetically-related children, even by artificial means. You cannot walk back up this road.

What’s more, there are no scientific studies on their use by growing children. None.

Nutt’s cavalier treatment of puberty blockers was awfully reckless.

And isn’t her logic backwards? How does blocking your natural development tell you what you really want? Isn’t it, rather, tipping the scales toward an ideologically pre-determined outcome?

Did Nicole even have the capacity to consent to this untested, irreversible medical treatment in the first place? “There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves,” cautions the American College of Pediatricians.

Nutt went on: “When the time for puberty came, she took estrogen, and she made the puberty that all girls do at the right time.”

Making the puberty that all girls do is strange phraseology. But of course this teen could not make the puberty that all girls do without ovaries and a uterus. Were the teen girls in the audience misled? Were the boys?

As to risk, Nutt brushed it aside: “You know, there’s always a risk to surgery, it’s actually not that complicated.”

“She will be, for all purposes, physically and biologically a girl. A woman.”

Wrong. Biologically, Nicole will never be a girl. Every cell in Nicole’s body contains male sex chromosomes. A lifetime of male-suppressing hormones will never change that fact.

At one point in her lecture, Nutt said: “I’m not trying to be funny, I’m trying to be factual.”

She should have tried harder.

Children suffering from gender dysphoria deserve our compassion. Surely their suffering is genuine, and profound. But they also deserve an adult response: first and foremost, our recognition that the distress and confusion they are experiencing will give way to acceptance of their natal biology in the vast majority of cases.

The person with persistent dysphoria who ultimately chooses radical surgery and a lifetime of hormones deserves compassion, too. As well as great sympathy, in my opinion, for treating a healthy body as sick and a troubled mind as healthy.

Nutt obviously disagrees. There is great disagreement on this issue, especially among medical experts.

When a public school takes sides, nobody wins. But students, and taxpayers, lose.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLE: What You Can Do to Fight Sex Trafficking

DACA: The Immigration Trojan Horse — Cost $25 Billion

How the original DREAM act was designed to cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the U.S.

Today DACA (Deferred Action-Childhood Arrivals) is a major issue for the Trump administration, with politicians from both parties attempting to persuade President Trump to provide lawful status for the illegal aliens who had been granted temporary lawful status in an ill-conceived and, indeed, illegal program that had been implemented by President Obama, a politically adept manipulator of language and a master of deception.

On December 18th I participated in an interview on Fox News to discuss DACA and the fact that according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) legalizing the estimated population of “Dreamers” would cost an estimated $26 billion.

On January 9th President Trump conducted a bi-partisan White House meeting to consider a compromise that would provide lawful immigration status for the approximately 800,000 illegal aliens who enrolled in DACA. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Trump seeks a “bill of love” from Congress for “Dreamers”

The “deal” would require funding a border wall, ending “chain migration” and perhaps, making E-Verify mandatory.  Of course without an adequate number of ICE agents, mandatory E-Verify would be of limited value since unscrupulous employers could simply hire illegal aliens “off the books” and without agents to conduct field investigations these criminally deceptive employment practices would not be discovered.

President Trump’s previous call for hiring an additional 10,000 ICE agents was not mentioned by the participants in the meeting.  This is extremely worrisome.

A lack of effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws, has for decades, undermined the integrity of the immigration system. In fact the 9/11 Commission cited the lack of interior enforcement as a key vulnerability that terrorists, and not only the 9/11 hijackers, had exploited to embed themselves in the U.S. in preparation to carrying out deadly attacks.

DACA was a travesty foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration, from its inception, was a scam based on lies and false suppositions. Legalizing these 800,000 illegal aliens would, in point of fact, legitimize Obama’s illegal action.

Obama claimed that he was invoking “prosecutorial discretion” when he stood in the White House Rose Garden on June 15, 2012 and announced that “since Congress failed to act” (to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform) he was going to act by creating DACA. But in reality Congress did act: it voted down legislation known as Comprehension Immigration Reform and, in so doing, took an action that is consistent with the role of Congress as established by the U.S. Constitution that created the system of “checks and balances.”

For Mr. Obama, however, the problem was that Congress did not act the way he wanted it to act.

Two days after that speech in 2012, I wrote an Op-Ed, “Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress,” in which I noted that what Obama had referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, in reality, be referred to as “Prosecutorial Deception.”

Legitimate use of prosecutorial discretion can provide a pragmatic solution to real-world limitations of law enforcement resources in a manner comparable to a triage.  For example, law enforcement officers frequently ignore relatively minor violations of law so that those limited resources can be available to address more serious violations of law.  Consider, for example, the police officer operating speed radar who ignores cars that exceed the speed limit by a small margin, but are being otherwise driven in a safe manner.  This enables the police officer to focus on vehicles that are being driven dangerously.

Under DACA, however, illegal aliens were not ignored to conserve limited resources.  In fact, limited resources were not conserved but were squandered to provide temporary lawful status to a huge number of illegal aliens without legal authority or justification.

Moreover, DACA constituted the de facto creation of law without the legislative process, but by unconstitutional executive fiat.

Let’s now consider the notion of “deferred action,” the foundation upon which DACA was purportedly created.  There are legitimate provisions in the immigration system to provide aliens with “deferred action” when it is a matter of compassion, for humanitarian purposes.  The key word is “deferred.”  What is deferred is the ultimate required departure of non-immigrant aliens.

For example, if a family from another country lawfully came to the United States as non-immigrants for a temporary visit with friends or relatives in the United States and one of the members of the family was injured in an accident or became ill, those aliens could apply for deferred action so that they would not have to leave the United States until the family crisis was resolved.

As an INS agent I dealt with such cases.  Generally the doctor who was treating the injured or ill family member would provide documentation to immigration authorities to verify the medical situation, with periodic updates.

As an INS special agent I was responsible for conducting investigations to make certain that applications were not fraudulent.

Generally these aliens would not be granted employment authorization except under the most extraordinary of circumstances if they needed to remain in the United States for a protracted period of time. However, DACA essentially “dropped a net” over 800,000 illegal aliens, not out of humanitarian concerns because of an unforeseen emergency but as a means of achieving a political objective.

Obama claimed that his action was to help young people who were brought to the United States by their parents and, consequently, were the victims of their parents’ actions over which they had no control.

Obama was counting on the fact that Americans are among the most compassionate people in the world, especially where children are concerned.  Media reports furthered this narrative and, to this day, many ill-informed Americans believe that all aliens who participated in DACA were teenagers. But in fact, the age cutoff was actually 31.  These aliens simply needed to claim that they had been brought to the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.  Those aliens today might now be as old as 36 years of age.  DACA should have been called DACCA (Deferred Action- Claimed Childhood Arrivals).

There were virtually no interviews or field investigations to verify any information or claims contained in the applications.

(The DREAM Act would have allowed aliens as old as 35 years of age to apply to participate in the amnesty that would have been created had the legislation passed.)

It is vital to note that even the term DREAM Act and the derivative term “Dreamers” is hypocritical.  Ever since the administration of Jimmy Carter, the term “Alien” has been eradicated from the immigration debate, not out of supposed “political correctness” but as a means of Orwellian thought control and Newspeak.

However, the “DREAM Act” is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.  It is maddening that when the imagery of the “American Dream” can be exploited, the term “alien” becomes palatable — but only when used in conjunction with this bit of Orwellian deception.

If the purpose of the DREAM Act was to help young illegal aliens, why did the politicians and “Gang of Eight” not simply limit it to aliens who had not yet attained the age of 21 and who could provide immigration authorities with their current school transcripts and report cards to verify their status as students in good standing?

What was never discussed in the mainstream media is that the whole point to the DREAM Act, pushed by some members of Congress and particularly the “Gang of Eight,” was to construct a legislated immigration “Trojan Horse.”

The DREAM Act established 35 years of age as the cutoff age for this amnesty because it would have covered an estimated 90% of the illegal alien population in the United States.  Furthermore, without the ability to conduct interviews, let alone field investigations, aliens could easily lie about their identities, their dates of birth and even their dates of entry into the United States.

There would be no way for adjuration officers to refute the claims of the aliens who participated in the program.

The DREAM Act was a carefully disguised version of failed legislation known as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

In 2007, after I testified about Comprehensive Immigration Reform before several hearings in the House and Senate, I wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Times, Immigration bill a ‘No Go’ in which I suggested that the legislative disaster be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act” because under that legislation, millions of illegal aliens who had entered the United States surreptitiously and without inspection, would have been provided with lawful status and official identity documents.

This would have violated the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony.

I was gratified when then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted my Op-Ed from the floor of the U.S. Senate during the contentious floor debate on Comprehensive Immigration Reform on three separate days, in which he shared my concerns and my proposed new name for that legislation.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a massive amnesty program that ultimately led to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation.  It has been said that insanity is doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.

As a highly successful real estate magnate, President Trump must especially understand that just as it is unwise to erect a building on a swamp, legislation must be constructed on morally and legally solid ground.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

VIDEO: Trump’s ‘Purging’ the Deep State — Do you Approve or Disapprove? Take the survey.

Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman representing the Republican Party of Sarasota County, Florida appeared on ABC Channel 7 to discuss President Trump and the “deep state.”

Ziegler notes:

The media is worried about President Trump “purging” the federal government. Excuse me, but If ANY employee of ANY federal agency is actively working to undermine the President, that employee should be FIRED!

The President doesn’t just have a right to do so, he has a DUTY to make sure his entire team – at every agency – is staffed by those who will execute on the President’s priorities.

Watch the debate:

SURVEY

Do you APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President? (Click on a response below to have your voice heard.)

Approve

Unsure

Disapprove

Movement to Boycott Super Bowl 2018 Grows on Social Media

If you Google the words “boycott Super Bowl 2018” or “boycott Superbowl 52” you will get over 7 million hits. As our readers already know the Google algorithm favors liberal positions over those of ordinary Americans. However, on the first page of the Google search we found two Facebook pages.

The first is Boycott Superbowl 2018 – Home | Facebook. Those with a Facebook account may invite their friends to join in the Boycott of Superbowl 2018. The second link is NFL Boycott – 2018 Super Bowl – Facebook. On this page one pledges to not watch Superbowl 2018 on February 4th, 2018. This Facebook page states:

We will be not be watching or listening to NFL games during the Super Bowl in solidarity with veterans around the country, as football players have continued to disrespect the national anthem, the American flag, and everything our nation stands for.

Our guess is President Trump, Vice President Pence and their families will not be attending the Superbowl 2018 or watching it on television.

There’s even a short YouTube video posted by RandomTopicsWithHumor asking everyone to the boycott of Superbowl 2018:

What can this mean if the NFL loses a large portion of its Superbowl LII audience? Well according to a Sports Illustrated article titled “Super Bowl commercials: How much does a spot cost in 2017?” it could cost the NFL millions in advertising revenue because of a boycott. The Sports Illustrated article notes:

The Super Bowl’s commercials have become nearly as big a draw as the game itself. According to Prosper Insights and Analytics, 17.7% of adults say that advertisements are the most important part of the event. The TV broadcast presents a golden opportunity for marketers to reach more than a hundred million Americans (114 million tuned in last year), and such an opportunity does not come cheap.

According to Variety, Fox is charging marketers anywhere between $5 million and $5.5 million for a 30-second ad this year. This cost does not depend on the two teams that actually take the field on Feb. 5 at NRG Stadium in Houston—Fox sold 90% of its commercial slots by December, before the Patriots or Falcons had reached the Super Bowl.

What would happen if that 17.7% of adults who only watch the game for the ads decided not to watch the ads because of the “taking a knee” controversy in 2018? What would happen if 10% to 20% of those who watch the game did the same thing – Boycott Superbowl 2018?

It would be a disaster for the NFL and their advertisers.

THINGS TO DO INSTEAD OF WATCHING SUPERBOWL LII:

  • Have a date night with your wife and family.
  • Visit with friends and play board games.
  • Spend the time with family.
  • Pray for our President and the nation.
  • Go to bed early.

PODCAST: Google’s Double Standard for Conservative, Liberal News Sites

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi joins us today to discuss why Google is presenting “fact checks” to some conservative news sites like The Federalist and The Daily Caller, but not to other sites that have gotten issues wrong, such as CNN.

Plus: we talk about whether Democrats are embarrassed about their tax reform “no” votes in light of all the bonuses and wage increases, and Meghan McCain’s fiery interview with Michael Wolff, author of “Fire and Fury.”

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Conservatives Are Being Destroyed by Facebook, Twitter and Google Without Even Realizing It.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Photo: John Greim John Greim Photography /Newscom.

House Republicans Roll Out Immigration Bill Packed With Border Security and Immigration Reforms

A group of Republican lawmakers unveiled Wednesday a bill that pairs granting legal status to younger illegal immigrants with a laundry list of conservative immigration reforms and border security enhancements, including President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

The proposal contains all of the changes to immigration law that Trump has demanded as part of a deal to replace the now-canceled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a Obama administration order that shielded hundreds of thousands of younger illegal immigrants from deportation.

dcnf-logo

It also incorporates several immigration enforcement measures long advocated by immigration hawks, including penalties for sanctuary cities and foreign nationals who overstay their visas.

Dubbed the Securing America’s Future Act, the bill was teased by its sponsors—GOP Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Michael McCaul of Texas, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, and Martha McSally of Arizona—in a Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. The official rollout Wednesday comes a day after Trump met with a bipartisan group lawmakers to discuss the framework of a bill that would legalize DACA recipients before the program expires in March.

The bill’s authors say the DACA negotiations present an opportunity to enact tougher immigration law and stave off pressure for a future amnesty of illegal immigrants.

“Americans have been debating how to best fix the country’s immigration system for decades,” they wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “Congress has a unique opportunity to act now, before the country ends up with another large population who crossed the border illegally as children.”

A summary of the bill’s provisions reads like an immigration hawk’s wish list. It would fulfill Trump’s four-point plan for a DACA compromise: legal status for DACA recipients, end to the Diversity Visa Lottery, limits on chain migration, and full funding for the border wall.

The bill also includes several provisions that Trump has not said are necessary to reach a DACA deal, but that immigration hawks have long argued are needed to eliminate the “pull factors” for illegal immigration. Among them are Kate’s Law, which enhances penalties for illegal immigrants who re-enter the country after being deported, and mandatory use of E-Verify, an electronic employment authorization system.

Democrats are almost certain to balk the GOP bill, especially because it does not offer a path to legal permanent residence or citizenship for DACA recipients. The bill instead allows beneficiaries to receive a three-year renewable legal status, essentially reviving the DACA program for the roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants who received protection under the original order.

Despite slim chances of garnering more than a few Democratic supporters, the bill could serve as a starting point for negotiating a DACA replacement.

At Wednesday’s meeting with lawmakers, Trump said he would be willing to place a DACA fix within a “bill of love,” but did not specify what such legislation would entail. The White House clarified Wednesday that any DACA compromise must also do away with chain migration and the Diversity Visa Lottery while also funding the border wall.

RELATED ARTICLE: Who ‘Dreamers’ Really Are and Why They Cost $26B Over 10 Years

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of demonstrators standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during a demonstration against the repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by President Donald Trump, Dec. 6, 2017. (Photo: Alex Edelman/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Israel Boycotts the BDS Boycotters and They Don’t Like It

Nothing makes Palestinian supporting BDS boycotters squeal louder than when they themselves become  victims of their own tactics.

Israel Strategic Affairs Ministry will deny entry for BDS activists if they fall into one of these four categories.

  1. Individuals with senior positions or significant roles in a BDS promoting organization, such as senior staff, board chairman, or board members.
  2. Key activists who take a consistent and continuous role to promote BDS.
  3. Institutional officials, such as mayors, who promote BDS in an active and ongoing way.
  4. People who arrive in Israel as representatives of one of the 20 designated  BDS supporting groups.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a Palestinian led economic campaign against the State of Israel.  The Palestinian terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO are responsible for the terrorism, murder, and violence against the Israeli people.  The Palestinian BDS Movement is the economic arm these Islamic terrorist groups use against Israel.

When the Arab countries of the Middle East could not stop the UN from declaring Israel’s Statehood in 1948, they chose war.  Israel’s Arab neighbors joined forces in 1948, 1967, and 1973 to once and for all destroy Israel, just as Mohammad did to the Jewish tribes of Medina (Yathrib) in 627 AD.

The Israelis however, did not cooperate and die, but instead humiliated their Arab enemies on the field of battle.  In the 1967 Six Day war the Israelis won additional lands in the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan.  The Arab Muslims tried again to wipe Israel off the map in 1973 and were again defeated.

We all know that if Israel lost any of these wars against her neighbors she would cease to exist. There would be a wholesale slaughter of Israeli men, women, children, that would make ISIS look like amateur sadists and murderers.

How The Arabs Betrayed The Palestinians 1948 & 1967

The Arab armies instructed the Muslims living in Israel to leave their villages and return after Israel was defeated in both the 1948 and 1967 wars.  Many Arab Muslims left Israel voluntarily and many stayed.

You know the old saying, no good deed goes unpunished?  After Israel won the 1948 War of Independence,  Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir declared, “ The Jews should treat the remaining Arabs with civil and human equality, but it is not our job to worry about the return of those who have fled.”  It is that human decency shown by the Israelis to their defeated enemies that haunts them to this day.

The reality set in very quickly the Arab Muslims could not defeat the Israelis in battle so they came up with a scheme demanding all the Arab Muslims who voluntarily left Israel to have the ‘Right of Return’.

Over the years just about every Muslim in the Middle East declares themselves a Palestinian Refugee along with their kids and their kids now totaling some four million people unconfirmed sources say.

The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency For Palestine) created in 1949 has been providing money and aid to ‘Palestinian Refugees’ transforming itself into a lucrative cottage industry.  The UNRWA website lists their 2010-2011 Budget at $1.23 Billion.

It has been argued the Palestinian leadership would rather keep the Billion plus dollars a year in refugee money flowing in,than risk getting cut off if a peace deal with Israel is accepted.  Keeping the UN money revenue stream flowing is Hamas and the PLO  maximizing their own self interests.  How you ask?

The Palestinians and her Arab Muslim neighbors ultimate goal is to destroy the State Of Israel.  How do I know this and you don’t?  It’s in the Hamas Charter,

“”The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. “….”Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”

The facts and evidence presented above shows the Palestinians are not interested in peace or land,  only the destruction of Israel.

The Palestinians and their Arab Muslim neighbors can’t destroy Israel militarily so they now use a combination of bloody violent terrorism and the BDS Movement as a means to an end.

As the enemies of Israel bide their time, we learned the UNRWA funds Hamas and the PLO over 1 Billion dollars a year keeping this conflict in the financial black.  The BDS supporters are knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting in this deadly battle – it frankly doesn’t matter if they connect the dots or not because their anti Jewish and anti Israel world views are driving them in many cases.

President Trump is cutting off the $260 Million earmarked through USAid to the Palestinians.  Pres. Trump rightly believes if the Palestinians don’t want peace its foolish to keep funding them.  President Trump has seen this Palestinian/Israeli conflict continue in the same old predictable ways from one administration to the next.  Breaking this never ending cycle of unrest begins with cutting off the UN funding that fuels it.

Conclusion

Israel is now denying BDS leaders and activists entry into the State of Israel.

Jewish Voices For Peace (JVP)  is one of the Palestinian BDS groups Israel is boycotting.  JVPs leadership response to being boycotted is so hilarious I couldn’t stop laughing.

On the JVP website in a January 8, 2018 article titled, “To Our Members Who Are Concerned About The Israeli Ban On JVP Activists” they offer this advice to their traumatized membership.

  1. Community Huddle:  We can use this time to ask questions, share knowledge, swap ideas, and offer support to one another.
  2. Pastoral Care:   If you’d like to be connected with a rabbi to help you process your feelings or emotions related to the ban, please fill out this easy form or email lerman@jvp.org.

JVP are the people who have chosen to ally themselves with the Jewish hating terrorist groups Hamas and the PLO to inflict as much economic harm on the State of Israel, in the name of some false peace through the BDS Movement.

When Israel employs the same tactics JVP uses against them, by boycotting their leadership entry into Israel, it results in their members needing a group hug and pastoral care.

JVP has no concern for the Palestinians who lost all their rights and are brutalized in Iraq by the Shia militias.  JVP has no concern for the innocent Israelis murdered by their BDS partners Hamas, PLO, and Hezbollah.

JVP ignores the calling for the “obliteration of Israel” in their partners Hamas Charter.  JVP is ignorant to the fact that there Hamas and  PLO partners hatred of the Jewish people applies to them too. When Hamas finds the  Jews of JVP no longer useful Hamas will turn their long knives on them too.

And so it goes……

Hollywood’s Crown Jewel of Hyperbole — The Golden Globe Awards

PopSugar.com ran a column titled “These Badass Women Stood Up to Sexual Harassment by Wearing Black to the Golden Globes.” The column was written by Victoria Messina who wrote that the actresses, “wore black for the patriarchy-smashing occasion.” The article contained an extensive slide show of actresses posing for the cameras wearing black dresses. The message was by wearing a black dress they will somehow stop sexual abuse. 

Melanie Phillips wrote a column about the Golden Globe awards titled “Hollywood Protest Was Another Vanity Parade.” Ms. Phillips wrote:

It’s hard to recall a more egregious display of vanity signalling than the black dress protest. It was “please snap me while I pose in my conscience”. MeToo! MeToo!

Hollywood is the crown jewel of hyperbole.

Hyperbole is defined as:

Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

The black dress attired actresses at the Golden Globe Awards have no idea what sexual oppression is all about. You see there is another group of women who are required by law enforced by their “patriarchy” to wear black, from head to toe, every minute of every day of their lives.

Kelsey Harkness, senior news producer at The Daily Signal, in a column titled “As American Women Put Their Pink Hats Back On, Women in Iran Rip Off Their Hijabs” published the below video:

Harkness wrote:

As American women prepare to put on their pink hats for a second time to protest President Donald Trump on the anniversary of his inauguration, women in Iran are taking off their hijabs, protesting an oppressive theocratic regime.

For nearly 40 years since the 1979 revolution, Iranian women have been forced to follow the country’s mandatory dress code, which includes long, loose garments and headscarves known as hijabs. While wearing a hijab here in the United States is a sign of female empowerment, taking them off in Iran is the ultimate sign of defiance.

Hollywood views the patriarchal oppression of women differently than do those who are truly oppressed.

Hollywood has now reached the pinnacle of hyperbole.

Their protest has no meaning nor impact for those women across the globe who are facing cruel abuses from their fathers, husbands, brothers and in some cases slave owners.

Hollywood actresses have turned a blind eye not only to the abuses of their fellow actresses but to the plight of women in countries that treat them as chattel. Hollywood actresses wearing black has not dented let alone smashed the patriarchy in certain countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

These actresses would be strangers in a strange land if they felt the pain of just one little girl married off to an older man.

May we humbly suggest that the real “badass women” are ripping off their black burkas in countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Ben Ritter.

VIDEO EXPOSE: Twitter Engineers To ‘Ban a Way of Talking’ Through ‘Shadow Banning’

In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, eight current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.

VIDEO: Senior Network Security Engineer Reveals Twitter Ready to Give Trump’s Private DMs to DOJ.

In an email, the alternative social media site, Gab.ai states:

Since August 2016 Gab has been leading the way with exposing the double standards, hypocrisy, and mass censorship of Big Social Media companies in Silicon Valley. We’ve told you about shadow-banning, hypocritical one-sided rule enforcement, unfair treatment of conservatives and Trump supporters, and one-sided political agendas being pushed by these multi-billion dollar communication platforms that are used by hundreds of millions of people.

Over the last several months we’ve been working closely with Project Veritas to help them infiltrate these big technology companies and expose the mass censorship and corruption happening each and everyday. Thanks to James O’Keefe and his team there is now undeniable proof of Twitter employees admitting that censorship, double standards, and hypocrisy are indeed happening on these platforms.

Olinda Hassan is a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety Team. Her team is responsible for the enforcement of Twitter’s rules and regulation, deciding who and what is allowed to be on the platform. Project Veritas caught her on camera saying this:

PV Journalist: “But how do you keep, like, my timeline… how do you keep certain things off my timeline? People will like retweet people.

Olinda: “We’re trying to down rank it, but you also need to have control of your timeline.”

PV Journalist: I’ve tried to, like block people like Cernovich and stuff like that and mute and stuff like that, but they still show up, like all the time.

Olinda: Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on.”

Some of the other admissions captured by Project Veritas are staggering, and confirm everything that Gab has been saying since August 2016: Silicon Valley is censoring Trump supporters, conservatives, and anyone else they disagree with politically. Here’s a quote from a former member of Twitter’s Content Review Team:

PV Journalist: …a user end services person would deem it: “Pro-Trump,” and take it down?

Mo Norai: Yeah, if they said this is: “Pro-Trump” I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?

PV Journalist: So, I flag something it’s going to go by you….

Mo Norai: Correct, and they you know you’re looking at it and you’re like: “Oh hey, this is Pro-Trump ….I don’t like it.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Twitter’s WORST Examples Of Anti-Conservative Bias

Twitter Engineer Admits to Banning Accounts that Express Interest in God, Guns, and America

EDITORS NOTE: James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018. Pre-order the book: http://www.americanpravdabook.com

Killing Trump is Deep State’s ‘Plan C,’ Warns Advisor Roger Stone

It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: The Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump advisor and confidante, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Senator Bob Dole as well as having held many other political positions. This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising. Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.” In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s cabinet to declare him unfit for office. This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment — another scheme Stone said would probably flop. Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: Killing the president.

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story. In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office. Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

Yet this bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales. It’s not only that Wolff has said that he can’t be sure everything in his book is true, that it contains factual errors and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues….” It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

As per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 cabinet members would have to agree, and then two-thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to the New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.” And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him,” said Stone.

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman. Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates, “Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity. ‘I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s cabinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,’ he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks. ‘There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another got into this cabinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.’”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.” Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying that they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump. As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority — American exceptionalism, if you will — and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said. ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.’” Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed….. Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work. He’s very much his own man.”

So, a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied — that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare. The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it? Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Open Doors Shows Others Are Closing on Christians

As if North Korea weren’t taking up enough headlines, Open Doors USA just added another one: Kim Jung Un’s country is topping the list of the world’s “Most Dangerous Places to Be a Christian.” Of course, the distinction is nothing new for the regime, which has owned the No. 1 spot for the last 15 years. “Nearly one of every 12 Christians in the world today lives in an area, or in a culture, in which Christianity is illegal, forbidden, or punished,” Open Doors President David Curry explained. In North Korea, where 50,000 people are suffering in prison or labor camps for their faith, few are surprised.What is surprising, experts say, is the alarming new trend in places like Afghanistan. The struggling country, which is a routine offender on the list, climbed into the second worst spot — a frustrating development for nations like America that continue to pour resources and troops into the area. Even in the Bush years, religious liberty was a problem in the area.

As Open Doors points out, Islamic extremism is the biggest driver of persecution, “initiating oppression and conflict in 35 of the 50 countries on the list.”

Now, with reports that Pakistan has been aiding Muslim radicals in Afghanistan, we’re starting to see the effects. President Trump, to his credit, cut off aid to Pakistan, one of our supposed “allies” in the region hoping he could persuade it to stop giving “safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan.”Amazingly, “Afghanistan and North Korea are nearly tied. Never before,” Curry told reporters, “have the top two countries been so close in incidents. Both countries are extreme in intolerance and outright persecution of Christians in every area Open Doors monitors. Afghanistan now meets the same level of persecution as North Korea in five out of six areas. This is a tragedy considering the efforts being made by the international community to help rebuild Afghanistan are failing to ensure freedom of religion.” Radical Islamists continue their march of savagery through most of the Middle East and Africa, burning schools and villages to the ground in their war against non-Muslims.Pakistan, meanwhile, the accomplice to Afghanistan’s rise to infamy, scored the highest in “churches or church building attacks, abductions, and forced marriages.”

For the Trump administration, which has done an admirable job cleaning up Iraq and driving ISIS out of the country, has another hill to climb in the surrounding nations. The problems of violence and extremism, which have mushroomed in the last decade, point back to President Obama’s failures as an international leader — not only on terrorism, but religious liberty.

As we’ve said before, America’s silence under last administration led to a rise in the global threat that Donald Trump is now working furiously to control. Conservative leaders like retired Rep. Frank Wolf spent the better part of Obama’s two terms begging him to get off the sidelines and defend the persecuted church. But if the president wouldn’t recognize the First Freedom of Americans here at home, how could he fight for the world’s? Fortunately, the new White House has no interest in tip-toeing around the issue of persecution. President Trump has been a staunch advocate for freedom, even going so far as to nominate Governor Sam Brownback to take over as Ambassador at Large for Religious Liberty. In the coming weeks, Vice President Mike Pence will build on the new administration’s agenda, visiting the Middle East and asking for other leaders’ cooperation in the fight.

For now, FRC’s Travis Weber says, the Open Doors Watch List should serve as “a reminder to all of us in the United States to never take our freedom for granted. Indeed, we must use our freedom to advocate for freedom of religion for all around the world, even as we guard against its infringement here at home.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLE: The House’s Born Ultimatum

The House’s Born Ultimatum

Like a lot of pregnant women, the young mom who visited Planned Parenthood in St. Paul last summer wasn’t sure she wanted to have the abortion. Already well into her second trimester, she was started to have second thoughts about whether this was the right decision for her or her baby. But, pressured by doctors to go through with it, she agreed — giving her permission for them to start the painful, two-day procedure. When the time came, she watched in shock as the male abortionist started “jamming that needle in and out” of her stomach. Finally, she was told: he couldn’t reach the baby’s heart to inject it with the fatal drug that would kill it. Panicked that her child might survive the abortion, she asked, “What if the baby was to come out alive?” The female doctor paused and said, “Most likely, we would break the baby’s neck.”

Horrified, she asked them to stop the dilation and went home. Her baby survived. But dozens of unborn children, who cross that same threshold every day, aren’t so lucky. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, the killing of a tiny child — whether she’s in the womb or breathing on her own — is what “choice” is all about. The decision of destroying a life, they’ve argued, even one who’s lived through the worst our world had to offer, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.” Even if it’s murder. They’ll deliver a baby alive to harvest its organs or they’ll cover up a botched abortion by leaving the little survivor to die. Either way, they’re breaking the law. And Republicans in Congress have had enough.

For more than two years, they’ve held hearings, launched investigations, and turned over reams of damning evidence to the FBI. Now, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says, it’s time to act. “Next week– the week of the annual March for Life, when tens of thousands of Americans come to Washington to give voice to the voiceless unborn — the House will vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” he announced. The bill, which easily passed the same House in 2015, never got a vote in the Senate. This time, leaders vow, it will. Although a similar measure was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, it never had the teeth pro-lifers needed to hold the abortion industry accountable. Under this version, the law would not only criminalize people who let newborns die (or actively kill them) but gives moms a private right of action to sue.

“…[I]f a baby is born after a failed abortion attempt, he or she should be given the same medical care as a baby born any other way,” McCarthy explained. “There is absolutely no ambiguity here. This is about protecting babies who are born and alive, and nobody should be against that.” Tell that to Planned Parenthood. They’ve argued that the bill would have a “chilling” effect on the “provision of abortion services.” “I cannot think of a more chilling effect,” Arina Grossu fired back, “than continuing to let abortionists get away with infanticide, the intentional killing of born-alive, breathing babies after an attempted abortion.”

But how often does that happen? According to David Daleiden’s videos, a lot more than we think. Yet even on the stand, under oath, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards denied it. “There was one specific video,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) reminded Richards, “…describing harvesting the brain of a late-term boy. She said she wasn’t sure if the baby was alive since its heart was still beating and she harvested its brain by cutting his head open starting with the chin. Do you recall that?” She said she didn’t. “There is nothing she has ever described,” Richards claimed, “that I could attest to has ever happened.” Based on hours of footage, the findings of the House Select Panel on Infant Lives, and the testimony of this one (out of who-knows-how-many) young Minnesota mother, it does happen. And obviously, the practice is far more widespread than Planned Parenthood, its president, or our former president will ever admit.

Murdering an innocent human being is not, and never has been, a constitutional right. That’s true whether the person is nine seconds old or 90 years old. Join Leader McCarthy, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 60 of her co-sponsors by calling your House member and supporting the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act. Even one lost baby is too many.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLEOpen Doors Shows Others Are Closing on Christians

U.S. Has a National Mango Board With a $6.7 Million Budget

Even those who follow government closely may not know that the United States has a National Mango Board with a multi-million-dollar budget to help increase consumption of the juicy tropical fruit. This is a serious matter that is handled at the presidential cabinet level. The Mango board is a type of panel that was authorized by Congress decades ago and has 18 members who are appointed by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It operates under a USDA oversight body known as the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

Based in Orlando, Florida, the National Mango Board has a generous $6.7 million annual budget, according to USDA figures. The board is composed of eight importers, two domestic producers, one first handler and seven foreign producers who serve three-year terms. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue recently appointed six members to the board, including a mango producer from Jalisco, Mexico and another from Piura, Peru. The others are importers from California and Texas and a producer from Hawaii. “I truly appreciate the time and expertise that these individuals have agreed to give guiding the National Mango Board in its mission to find ways to provide fresh mangos to U.S. consumers and help their industry thrive,” Perdue said in an agency statement.

Here’s why this obscure government entity exists; to increase the consumption of fresh mangos in the United States, unlikely to be a pressing issue for most Americans. The board accomplishes this with promotion and market development activities that naturally also support a thriving industry. “The board’s vision is to bring the world’s love of mangos to the U.S.,” according to the National Mango Board website, which describes itself as a “promotion and research organization.” The site includes all sorts of interesting information about mangos, including the unique texture and flavors of different varieties, how to ripen, cut and store the fruit and tips on choosing the perfect mango—don’t focus on color because it’s not the best indicator of ripeness. There are also recipes for just about any dish with mango, including tropical mango guacamole, shrimp and mango curry, mango Manchego stuffed with jalapeños and crusted pork with mango relish, among others. Six varieties of mangos are sold in the U.S.; Tommy Atkins, Haden, Kent, Keitt, Honey and Francis.

The board’s research portion is displayed in several sections that offer information on nutrition, history and “fun facts.” For instance, mangos were first grown in India over 5,000 years ago and mango seeds traveled with humans from Asia to the Middle East, East Africa and South America beginning around 300 or 400 A.D. “Legend says that Buddha meditated under the cool shade of a mango tree,” according to the National Mango Board. More serious research includes academic studies on consumer attitudes, bioactive components of mangos and the effect of hot water treatment on a Mexican specie (Tommy Atkins) vulnerable to fruit flies. A separate study on this type of mango, which also comes from Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, focuses on sunken pits on the fruit’s peel caused by pitting or lenticel damage. This can deter consumers at the store level, according to researchers, and most packers do not have a clear understanding if the damage comes from the orchards or the packing process. Tommy Atkins mangos from Oaxaca, Jalisco, Nayarit and Sinaloa are the focal point of that research.

One of the more recent studies sponsored by the board includes an in-depth analysis on the ideal temperature to deliver the highest quality mangos. The findings are delivered in an exhaustive 38-page report, but the nutshell is that the optimal transit temperature for mangos is around 55 degrees Fahrenheit. The problem however, is that mangos are often transported in refrigerated trailers with other food items that require colder temperatures and the mangos get compromised. The experts in“perishable food cold chain”  hired to research the matter were left with the objective of finding commercially available pallet covers for the thermal protection of mango pallets transported in a mixed load refrigerated trailer. It’s not clear how much this important research cost the Mango Board. For those wondering, Kent mangos were used in the study and pallet covers were tested with and without a base.

Here’s How Bad Left-Wing Antics on Campus Were in 2017

A frequent point I have made in past columns has been about the educational travesty happening on many college campuses.

Some people have labeled my observations and concerns as trivial, unimportant, and cherry-picking. While the spring semester awaits us, let’s ask ourselves whether we’d like to see repeats of last year’s antics.

An excellent source for college news is Campus Reform, a conservative website operated by the Leadership Institute. Its reporters are college students. Here is a tiny sample of last year’s bizarre stories.

Donna Riley, a professor at Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education, published an article in the most recent issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Education, positing that academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.”

Riley added that “scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.”

Would you hire an engineering education graduate who has little mastery of the rigor of engineering? What does Riley’s vision, if actually practiced by her colleagues, do to the worth of degrees in engineering education from Purdue held by female and black students?

Sympathizing with Riley’s vision is Rochelle Gutierrez, a math education professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

In her recent book, she says the ability to solve algebra and geometry problems perpetuates “unearned privilege” among whites. Educators must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.

She thinks that “on many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness.” After all, she adds, “who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”

What’s worse is that the university’s interim provost, John Wilkin, sanctioned her vision, telling Fox News that Gutierrez is an established and admired scholar who has been published in many peer-reviewed publications.

I hope that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s black students don’t have the same admiration and stay away from her classes.

Last February, a California State University, Fullerton professor assaulted a CSUF Republicans member during a demonstration against President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. The students identified the assailant as Eric Canin, an anthropology professor.

Fortunately, the school had the good sense to later suspend Canin after confirming the allegations through an internal investigation.

Last month, the presidents of 13 San Antonio colleges declared in an op-ed written by Ric Baser, president of the Higher Education Council of San Antonio, and signed by San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and 12 other members of the council that “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” should not be treated as free speech on college campuses.

Their vision should be seen as tyranny.

The true test of one’s commitment to free speech doesn’t come when he permits people to be free to make statements that he does not find offensive. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to make statements he does deem offensive.

Last year, University of Georgia professor Rick Watson adopted a policy allowing students to select their own grade if they “feel unduly stressed” by their actual grade in the class.

Benjamin Ayers, dean of the school’s Terry College of Business, released a statement condemning Watson’s pick-your-own-grade policy, calling it “inappropriate.” He added:

Rest assured that this ill-advised proposal will not be implemented in any Terry classroom. The University of Georgia upholds strict guidelines and academic policies to promote a culture of academic rigor, integrity, and honesty.

Ayers’ response gives us hope that not all is lost in terms of academic honesty.

Other campus good news is a report on the resignation of George Ciccariello-Maher, a white Drexel University professor who tweeted last winter, “All I Want for Christmas Is White Genocide.” He said that he resigned from his tenured position because threats against him and his family had become “unsustainable.”

If conservative students made such threats, they, too, could benefit from learning the principles of free speech.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University