Giving New Heart to the Wounded

/in , , , , , , , /by

Note: The following text is a slightly edited version of remarks that the author gave recently at the Catholic Information Center in Washington D.C. to mark the publication of her book Adam and Eve After the Pill, Revisited, with an introduction by the late Cardinal George Pell. – Robert Royal

Mary Eberstadt: As pressure mounts on the Church to capitulate to the sexual revolution, evidence shows it would cripple the Church, as it has crippled every other church that’s tried it. 

Adam and Eve after the Pill, Revisited, closes a body of work that’s occupied a lot of my attention for the past fifteen years. I don’t mean that the last word has been said – far from it. New voices are emerging, including from non-religious circles, that are also newly skeptical of the post-1960s status quo. I mean instead that an idea that started percolating fifteen years ago has now received the systematic treatment first envisioned for it.

For six decades, a secularizing Western society has been telling itself a falsely happy story about the outcomes of the sexual revolution. To counter that story, we’ve needed an account of its fallout closer to the truth. That account falls into two parts: one examining post-revolutionary reality among individuals; and the other examining its effects on the wider world.

In 2008, the then-editor of First Things, Joseph Bottum, invited me to write an essay about Humanae Vitae to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the encyclical. At the time, this seemed like a fine opportunity for an exercise in spirited contrarianism. After all, Humanae Vitae may be the most universally mocked and reviled religious statements of the past century. How, many millions have asked, could the Church possibly defend the teaching against artificial contraception? Didn’t it want to join the modern world? Etc.

Before I could try to shock the bourgeoisie with a rousing defense of Humanae Vitae, I actually had to read the thing for the first time. It’s hard to get across just how transformative that reading became. Humanae Vitae makes several predictions about what the world would look like once the sexual revolution really took hold.  The reason these predictions amazed me was simple, yet profound.

As a researcher who had studied and written about various aspects of American society over the years, I knew from different forms of evidence, popular as well as expert, that these predictions weren’t just predictions – they had actually all come true. Confirmation abounded, especially in the social sciences. In fact, Humanae Vitae has been vindicated as few attempts to spy the future ever are: including by information that did not exist when the document was written, and by scholars and other experts with no interest whatever in its teaching.

What struck me most forcefully here was that Church teaching was being vindicated by secular sources – again, secular social science, assembled by mostly secular social scientists, and appearing in secular journals. It was not theology that was demonstrating the downside of separating procreation and recreation – though no doubt theology can. Instead, it was scholarship about subjects like broken homes, interrupted relations between the sexes, rising rates of mental illness and addiction, and lots of other interrelated facts. And though the myriad authors of that research across the decades wouldn’t have dreamed of it, their work, understood in full, had gone to show, in effect, that Humanae Vitae and related Church teaching were right.

That perception – that aha! moment – led to the two Adam and Eve books, and their contrarian readings of the legacy of the sexual revolution. The first, Adam and Eve after the Pill, examined what might be called the microcosmic fallout of humanity’s embrace of contraception: the effects on individual men, women, and children, and on the radically changed social mores of the postrevolutionary order.

The second, new book widens the aperture to cover the macrocosmic fallout. It dissects the effects of the revolution on society, politics, and the Church. Needless to add, the Foreword by the late, great Cardinal George Pell, with whom I discussed some of these arguments, is the honor of a lifetime. This book, like the earlier one, revolves around the same general theme: the most unpopular Church teaching is being vindicated inadvertently, but really, by the accumulation of postrevolutionary evidence.

Much of what we do in life feels accidental at the time. This body of work is no exception. The late Fr. Arne Panula was a great believer in Providence. At times I feel he’s laughing at me for not having shared his certainty about the workings of that capital-P word. The idea that I’d spend years committing these arguments to paper, and sometimes to public appearances, would have seemed unlikely, even absurd to me in 2008; and certainly unwanted. But unexpected or not, the work commenced, and its unfolding changed me.

Before, I thought of myself as a writer who happened to be Catholic. Afterwards, I became a Catholic writer. What does that mean? It means that even if I hadn’t been a Catholic in the first place, the assembling of the evidence in the Adam and Eve books would have forced me to become one.

That’s because, if the argument of those books is true, then Church teaching is true. And if Church teaching is true, and one is privileged to witness a proof of that truth, however unanticipated, one can’t move on, and pretend there’s nothing to see here. One is stuck. And that’s how I turned from an accidental Catholic into an intentional one.

A thought that permeates both books that takes us straight to the present: We are all witnesses, here and now, to a great irony that encompasses not only the Catholics of America, but those of the entire West.

After all, Western Christianity spends most of its time these days in a defensive crouch, squabbling internally. Yet all the while, evidence from outside the Church continues to point toward something that many inside the Church seem not to know. The Church, practically alone among all institutions, has been harboring profound truths for two thousand years – most notably, in this case, the truth that living by that big, bad rule book is actually better for human beings than discarding it.

The irony is extraordinary. Pressure has been mounting for a long time now for the Catholic Church to do what most Protestant churches have done – abandon the teachings that prompt the most complaining from the pews – i.e., put down the Catechism, and pick up the cool-kid flag. Yet even as the call for capitulation grows louder, transforming and deforming Catholic discussion, the evidence thrown out by the world itself points in the opposite direction: caving to the sexual revolution would cripple the Church – exactly as it has crippled every other church that’s tried it.

And beyond that institutional point lies another that is surpassingly important. This kind of remedial labor, this insistence that postrevolutionary reality is other than what the dominant culture says it is, is not done for no reason. The revolution continues to claim many, many victims. To honor their witness is not some kind of reactionary indulgence, as boosters of the revolution claim. No: it is humanitarian work. There needs to be more of it. And there will be.

Meanwhile, it’s my modest hope that the facts assembled during these past 15 years will persuade some believers and unbelievers alike, and above all, give new heart to the wounded and those who tend them.

You may also enjoy:

Anthony Esolen’s Let’s Really Read the Signs of the Times

Michael Pakaluk’s The Wreck of Vatican II

AUTHOR

Mary Eberstadt

Mary Eberstadt is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute and holds the Panula Chair at the Catholic Information Center. Her most recent book is Adam and Eve after the Pill, Revisited, with a Foreword by Cardinal George Pell.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © 2023 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The ATF Expansion of the Gun Registry Turns Law-Abiding Gun Owners into Felons

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Despite decades of warnings from crime prevention and law experts, the Biden administration has taken a page out of FDR’s book to crack down on legal gun owners.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has followed through on their plan to turn millions of lawful gun owners into felons in the name of “public safety” by reclassifying pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, effectively expanding the unconstitutional national gun registry.

Stabilizing braces are devices that can be attached to pistols to aid the user in balancing their arm. Originally created to help people with disabilities, the accessory is now more popular amongst mainstream shooters who use them to adapt pistols into guns that can be shot from the shoulder, which has been legal to do in the past. Now, there’s a big hoop to jump through if you don’t want to be hit with fines and/or jail time.

As the Department of Justice first proposed on June 7, 2021 and put into practice on January 13, 2023, those who wish to add stabilizers to their pistols “must comply with the heightened regulations on those dangerous and easily concealable weapons.”

Under the new rules, any pistol modified with such a brace is now considered to be a short-barreled rifle. As the DOJ explained themselves, the National Firearms Act (NFA) has, since the 1930s, “imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns.”

“Beyond background checks and serial numbers, those heightened requirements include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers,” the statement reads. The tax required for anyone making or buying a short-barreled rifle is $200.

The Biden administration has generously granted all of the impacted manufacturers, dealers, and individuals a 120-day period to comply—by registering the firearm, removing the brace, surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying it.

Attorney General Merrick Garland “directed” the ATF to “address the issue of stabilizing braces” within 60 days at an April 2021 event with President Joe Biden, prompting the swift action taken by the DOJ in announcing the proposed rule the next month.

Biden had also previously selected former Obama advisor Steven Dettelbach to serve as the head of the ATF, who helped the administration reach their goal of passing yet another gun control law.

While the bureau claims the new rule won’t impact stabilizing braces “that are objectively designed and intended as a ‘stabilizing brace’ for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle,” there is no “objective” standard listed for what disabled people are allowed to carry, or what is “intended” as an aid.

The history of tyrannical politicians attempting to force every gun owner to register their weapons with the government is long. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered implementing a ban on fully-automatic firearms, but was faced with pushback from the DOJ, which argued that it would violate the Second Amendment.

To compromise, the administration instead pushed for legislation to require the registration of fully-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors. This idea became law in the form of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which is what the current-day DOJ and ATF have used to justify their expansion of the national gun registry for law-abiding citizens.

Roosevelt was set on creating a national firearm registry for every gun, demonstrated by his appointment of Homer Cummings to the position of Attorney General, who helped draft the NFA.

“Show me the man who doesn’t want his gun registered and I will show you a man who shouldn’t have a gun,” Cummings wrote in 1938, the year he pushed for separate handgun registration legislation.

Fast forward by approximately 50 years, and then-President Ronald Reagan signs the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, which federally prohibits national gun registries. Though Reagan faltered on the Second Amendment at times (see: the Mulford Act), this was a good policy that was unfortunately ignored by anti-gun politicians.

Experts have been warning about the dystopian consequences of criminalizing stabilizing braces, which are used by disabled and able-bodied individuals alike to increase balance and accuracy.

Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote for Real Clear Politics: “Few seem to realize that stabilizing braces for pistols were originally designed to allow wounded and disabled veterans who may have lost the use of part of their hand to hold handguns. They are essentially a strap attached to the gun. Disabled individuals are often viewed as easy targets by criminals, and stabilizers make it easier to defend themselves.”

He cites Rick Cicero, a disabled veteran who lost his right arm and leg in an explosion while serving in Afghanistan 13 years ago.

“If they take this away, they’re violating their own law because this is designed and employed for people like me,” Cicero told Spectrum News 9 after the DOJ proposed the rule in 2021.

Cicero, who teaches fellow injured veterans on how to shoot again, added that “the most important thing to me about this brace, this whole aspect, is another avenue of getting injured veterans out of the house.”

According to Dr. Lott, the two instances that Biden cited to garner support for the new ATF policy weren’t even valid examples of braces being used to better commit a crime.

“All this started after President Biden cited a crime in 2021 in Colorado – where a shooter used a pistol stabilizing brace when attacking shoppers in a grocery store – to justify calling for classifying such brace-affixed pistols as machine guns,” Lott wrote. “Ahmed Al Alwi murdered 10 people at close range in a Boulder, Colo. grocery store. A previous shooting in 2019 by Connor Betts, in Dayton, Ohio, also involved a pistol brace. These are the only two cases of their kind and, more importantly, neither of them had any difficulty holding their guns and all their shots were fired at a short distance. There is no evidence that the brace made any difference in their ability to carry out the attacks. And there has been no surge in crime by the disabled or others using these braces.”

This all stems back to the inherent right that Americans have to self-protection through gun ownership. As FEE’s Brett Cooper wrote at the time of the rule proposal, James Madison condemned a governmental structure in which overarching entities can rewrite the law as they see fit.

In Federalist No. 48, the founding father warned that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

“This is exactly what is happening today,” Cooper wrote. “This stealth power grab should concern all Americans, even if they are outside the immediately-impacted gun community.”

AUTHOR

Olivia Rondeau

Olivia is a 21-year-old political commentator, strategist, and journalist hailing from the Washington, DC area, and currently based in Los Angeles.

RELATED VIDEO: Will Gun Control Make Us Any Safer?

Related Articles

How the James-Younger Gang’s Historic Defeat Showed the Importance of a Well-Armed and Responsible Citizenry by Lawrence Reed

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence by Jon Miltimore

Gun Control Comes from a Place of Privilege by Patrick Carroll

Texas Is Now an “Open Carry” State, Here’s Why That’s a Good Thing by Hannah Cox

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

How Entrepreneurs Are Expanding Education Options For Families in Texas

/in , , , , , , /by

“Parents are the best advocates of their children and ultimately know what type of schooling is best from an academic, social and moral perspective,” said Braveheart founder Chrystal Bernard.

In early 2020, Chrystal and Joshua Bernard decided that they would begin homeschooling their four young children at the start of the following school year. Their two oldest children were completing first grade and pre-kindergarten, respectively, at a traditional private school in the greater Fort Worth, Texas area, but the Bernards were drawn to homeschooling’s more personalized, family-centered educational approach.

The school shutdowns later that year accelerated their homeschooling plans, and the Bernards became increasingly convinced that more learner-centered education was the path forward—both for their own children as well as for others in their local community. “Homeschooling enabled us to connect more as a family and helped our two eldest children skyrocket in their academics, drawing other people to our method of schooling,” said Chrystal, who taught high school mathematics in Texas public schools before launching her own CPA firm.

During the 2020/2021 school year, the Bernards heard from a growing number of parents who wanted a more personalized, accessible, faith-based educational option. “As pastors of our local church, we saw the desires of people in our community who wanted a Christian education with low student-teacher ratios without the hefty tuition prices of the local private schools,” said Chrystal. “Additionally, with the rise of virtual learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how some students were falling through the cracks.”

In the fall of 2021, the couple founded Braveheart Christian Academy, a pre-kindergarten to 7th grade microschool in Arlington, Texas that emphasizes individualized, mastery-based learning with a focus on character development. Some of Braveheart’s teachers taught in the local public schools but were attracted to the new school’s smaller, more holistic learning environment. “Instead of placing students in a box, education is brought to their level,” said Chrystal, who uses assessment tests to evaluate each child’s skill level upon enrollment and then adapts the curriculum accordingly. “We had one child who entered school as a fourth grader by age but who performed at a first grade level. Now, after a school-year-and-a-half with us, that student has nearly caught up academically to his fifth grade peers,” she told me during my recent visit to Braveheart.

With an annual tuition of about $7,000, Braveheart is significantly lower in cost than most traditional private schools in the area, but it is still financially out of reach for many families. “Cost is the major barrier,” said Chrystal, who hears often from parents who wish to enroll their children but can’t afford it.

The Bernards do what they can to lower the tuition burden. They received a microgrant from the VELA Education Fund, a national philanthropic non-profit that provides small amounts of funding to education entrepreneurs who are creating individualized, out-of-system learning models. One local VELA partner, The Miles Foundation, recently dedicated $1 million to support the rising number of founders in Tarrant County. “By investing in everyday education entrepreneurs, we can create real change in the education system,” said Grant Coates, president of The Miles Foundation.

In addition to philanthropy, the Bernards also rely on personal fundraising efforts to reduce costs to parents, but Braveheart is still financially inaccessible to many who want it. “One parent was actually weighing whether she should pay her rent or the school tuition,” said Chrystal, acknowledging that providing a quality education for their children is a top priority for many families.

Last week, Texas became the latest in a string of states to introduce school choice legislation that would enable education funding to follow students to whichever school their parents choose. The bill would provide an annual education savings account up to $8,000 for each Texas student to use toward tuition, books and supplies. This amount would more than cover the cost of Braveheart and similar schools across the state, including the new ones that have been quickly emerging over the past three years of education disruption.

Chrystal is a strong supporter of these school choice initiatives. “Every Texas family should be afforded the opportunity to attend their school of choice, including private schools,” she said. “For many families, the sole barrier is the financial requirement needed to do so. Parents are the best advocates of their children and ultimately know what type of schooling is best from an academic, social and moral perspective.”

The Bernards will continue their efforts to make Braveheart more accessible to the families that want it, but Chrystal believes that statewide education choice policies will be most empowering. “The Texas school choice bill would give more freedom and leverage to parents to make the best schooling decision for their children,” she said.

This article was originally published at Forbes.com. It has been reprinted with permission.

AUTHOR

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and host of the weekly LiberatED podcast. She is also the author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, education policy fellow at State Policy Network, and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly email newsletter here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Than One Million Students Left District Schools. How Do We Know They’re Learning?

New York City’s Not-So-Secret World of Low-Cost Private Schools

Why Can’t This Retired US Navy Officer and Engineer Open a Private School in Nevada?

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

S.O.S. — The Indictment of Donald J. Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS 

RICK MANNING

Rick Manning is a Conservative Commandos and AUN-TV alumnus and the President, Americans for Limited Government. Rick also served on President Trump’s transition team.  And he is also the author of the new book with Starr Parker — “Necessary Noise:  How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why this is good for America!”

TOPIC:  Indictment of Donald J. Trump

KENNETH RAPOZA

Kenneth Rapoza is an Industry Analyst at The Coalition for a Prosperous America.  Kenneth  is a seasoned, veteran business journalist with more than 20 years of experience reporting locally for The Boston Globe, and stationed abroad as a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones News in Sao Paulo where he won awards for his work.   Ken has covered trade, big business and investing in Brazil, Russia, India and China for Forbes and is considered to be one of the magazine’s most reliable experts on those countries. He has traveled throughout all of the countries he covers and has seen first hand China’s impressive growth and its ghost towns as recent as 2017.

TOPIC: First-Ever House Select Committee on China Shows Washington’s Worry

©AUN-TV/Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

DeSantis Will Irrevocably Lose the Trust of the 4.6+ Million FL Voters Who Gave Him a Second Term. Here’s Why.

/in , , , , , /by

There has been much speculation about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis running for president in 2024.

In the 2020 midterms DeSantis won 59.4% of the votes in his bid for re-election. For the first time in Florida election history DeSantis, a Republican, won Palm Beach and Miami Dade counties. He won reelection with an astounding 4,614,307 votes.

Those who voted for DeSantis fully expect him to fulfill his term in office and continue his relentless and very successful campaign to Keep Florida Free.

At the end of his victory speech Governor DeSantis said,

Now, while our country flounders due to failed leadership in Washington, Florida is on the right track.  I believe the survival of the American experiment requires a revival of true American principles.  Florida has proved that it can be done.  We offer a ray of hope that better days still lie ahead.  I am proud of our achievements in this state.  I am honored by your support, and I look forward to road ahead.  I have fought the good fight.  I have finished the race and this first curve, and I have kept the faith.  We’ve accomplished more than anybody thought possible 4 years ago, but we’ve got so much more to do and I have only begun to fight.  God bless you all.  Thank you very much.  Thank you for a historic landslide victory.

The question is will Governor DeSantis “keep the faith” of the Floridians who gave him a second term, or will he abandon them to seek a higher federal office?

For DeSantis to run he must resign as governor on or about December 1st, 2023 and this resignation is “irrevocable.”

Florida’s Resign-to-Run Law

The Florida legislature in 2017 began the process of passing what is known as a “Resign-to-Run” law. On March 30th, 2018 then Governor Rick Scott signed Florida Statutes 99.012 into law.

Here are the key points of Florida Statues 99.012:

  1. The “resign-to-run law” essentially prohibits an elected or appointed “officer” from qualifying as a candidate for another state, district, county or municipal public office if the terms or any part thereof run concurrently with each other, without resigning from the office the person presently holds.  (Section 99.012(3), Florida Statutes.)
  2. An “officer” is a person, whether elected or appointed, who has the authority to exercise the sovereign powers of the state pertaining to an office recognized under the State Constitution or laws of the state.  With respect to a municipality, an “officer” means a person, whether elected or appointed, who has the authority to exercise municipal power as provided by the State Constitution, state laws, or municipal charter.  (Section 99.012(1), Florida Statutes.)
  3. Florida case law further explains that an “officer” is one who exercises some portion of the sovereign power, either in making, executing or administering the laws and who derives his or her position from a duly and legally authorized election or appointment, whose duties are continuous in nature and defined by law, not contract.
  4. Examples of “officers” include, but are not limited to: mayors, city and county commissioners, state legislators, supervisors of elections, sheriffs, property appraisers, judges, school board members, superintendents of school, state attorneys and public defenders, municipal fire chiefs, medical examiners, and elected hospital board and airport authority members.
  5. The resignation must be submitted in writing at least 10 days prior to the first day of qualifying for the office the person intends to seek. (Section 99.012(3)(c), Florida Statutes.)
  6. The resignation must take effect no later than the earlier of the following dates: a)  The date the officer would take office, if elected; or b)  The date the officer’s successor is required to take office. (Section 99.012(3)(d), Florida Statutes.)

By law Governor DeSantis must submit an “irrevocable resignation” in order to run for president.

The Bottom Line

A “resign to run” law is a conflicts of interest law. Either DeSantis is governor of the state of Florida or he is running for president. Doing both is a political conflict of interest.

If DeSantis decides to run then his time and efforts will have to shift to his 2024 campaign if he intends to win the GOP nomination.

According to the Federal Election Commission website as of the publishing of this column there are 698 candidates from 20 parties running for president.

The GOP’s top candidate to resister is President Donald J. Trump. There have been multiple polls asking eligible voters about Trump and DeSantis candidacies here, here, here and here.

Given the provisions of Florida’s Resign-to-Run statues there are two possible outcomes:

  1. DeSantis wins the GOP nomination and then wins the 2024 Presidential election.
  2. DeSantis wins the GOP nomination and then loses the 2024 Presidential election.

If either #1 or #2 happens then Governor DeSantis would leave the governor’s mansion on January 20th, 2025.

Two years before the end of his current term as governor.

The question that Governor DeSantis must ask himself is will he irrevocably lose the trust of the 4.6+ million Florida voters who gave him a second term thereby losing the state of Florida, thereby allowing the Democrats to keep the White House.

Remember what Desantis said, “We’ve [the people of Florida] accomplished more than anybody thought possible 4 years ago, but we’ve got so much more to do and I have only begun to fight.”

QUESTION: Will DeSantis keep his promise to “keep up the fight” for freedom in Florida or not?

ANSWER: Governor DeSantis, if he wants to run for president, has a prefect right to do so. However, he must “follow the law” and irrevocably resign first to prove his commitment.

DeSantis can’t have his cake and eat is too.

Any effort to tweak the Resign-to-Run law to favor one specific elected “official” destroys the entire premise of the law and its intent.

Any favoritism toward one elected official will inextricably result in a negative backlash and possibly split the GOP.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why is Ron DeSantis blatantly violating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment?

Florida may tweak resign-to-run law to aid a potential DeSantis 2024 run, leaders say

DeSantis Says He Hasn’t ‘Made A Final Decision’ On 2024 Presidential Run

The Manhattan D.A. got caught hiding 600 pages of documents that prove Trump’s innocence

Ford Burns Through Billions, Expects to Lose $12 Billion on Electric Vehicle Line

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Despite the losses, Ford continues to push forward and hopes to manufacture two million EVs a year by 2026 and hit an 8% profit margin for its EV division. The company is chasing Elon Musk’s Tesla for EV sales in the U.S. and remains far behind the electric car giant. Tesla, which started in 2003, lost money for ten years before finally turning a profit in 2013. Musk’s company made $12.6 billion in 2022, an impressive jump from $5.5 billion in 2021.

They don’t care. As long as the Democrats are running/ruining the economy with their environmental/climate garbage, it’s the American  taxpayer that will have to pay for this mess.

Ford Says It Will Lose $3 Billion on EVs This Year as It Touts Startup Mentality

Ford Motor Co. expects to lose about $3 billion on its electric-vehicle business this year, a reminder of how far traditional auto makers have to go in turning their EV portfolios profitable.

Ford disclosed the figure Thursday while outlining a new financial-reporting structure intended to give investors better insight into the performance of its three business units. Ford finance chief John Lawler described the EV division as a startup inside the 119-year-old company, and said it is normal for a fledgling business to rack up losses.

Ford shares were down about 1.3% in afternoon trading Thursday…

Read more.

Ford Projects Its EV Division Will Lose Billions This Year

The Ford Motor Company is going full throttle toward electric vehicle manufacturing, but that decision will cost the Michigan-based carmaker billions this year alone.

Ford said Thursday that it expects its EV division will lose $3 billion in 2023 as it pushes to produce more vehicles and build electric battery plants in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan, The Financial Times reported. The carmaker wasn’t surprised by the massive loss of money as it views its EV division, known as Model e, as a “start-up.”

“Ford Model e is an EV start-up within Ford and, as everyone knows, EV start-ups lose money while they invest in capability, develop knowledge, build volume and gain share,” said John Lawler, Ford’s chief financial officer.

Despite the losses, Ford continues to push forward and hopes to manufacture two million EVs a year by 2026 and hit an 8% profit margin for its EV division. The company is chasing Elon Musk’s Tesla for EV sales in the U.S. and remains far behind the electric car giant. Tesla, which started in 2003, lost money for ten years before finally turning a profit in 2013. Musk’s company made $12.6 billion in 2022, an impressive jump from $5.5 billion in 2021.

Ford plans to explain its financials in more detail to investors and how it will stick to its goal of selling only zero-carbon emission vehicles by 2040, according to The Financial Times. Ford is relying on Ford Blue, its gas-powered vehicle production, to fund the carmaker’s transition to EVs.

Ford Blue is expected to rake in $7 billion this year, and the company’s commercial vehicles division, Ford Pro, is expected to double last year’s earnings to $6 billion this year. Lawler blamed spending on new battery plants and battery technology for the carmaker’s EV losses.

Last month, the carmaker was criticized for collaborating with a Chinese company to build a battery plant in Michigan. In its proposal, Ford said it would partner with the Chinese company Contemporary Amperex Technology on the plant that would employ 2,500 people when it begins production in 2026.

Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin withdrew his state from consideration for the new battery plant because of Ford’s partnership with the Chinese company. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, however, has pushed for the battery plant to come to the Great Lakes State and celebrated Ford’s decision to build the plant in Michigan.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mass Hysteria Driving the EV Phenomenon

Why Are There No EV Charging Stations at Interstate Rest Stops? Blame the Feds!

Democrats Passed $7,500 Electric Vehicle Tax Credit, Then EV Prices Were Immediately Raised $7,500

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s Approval Plummets as Americans Fear Economic Downfall

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Biden is without question the worst POTUS of any of our lifetimes. God knows how much damage he will cause in the next 20 months. #Trump2024!

That he has any support at all is made possible by a corrupt and lying press.

BIDEN’S APPROVAL PLUMMETS AS AMERICANS FEAR ECONOMIC DOWNFALL

By Real News Now, March 23, 2023

Since Biden has became our President, there has been a slew of issues he has created as well as failed to address in a time sensitive manner. It’s becoming to the point where America has begun to wonder if he actively is destroying the country on purpose or if he is just simply the wrong man for the job.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, has released a poll on the approval ratings for the current president. In February, Biden was looking at an approval rating of 45%. Today we find out that number has dropped significantly to almost matching an all time low at a staggering 38%.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Budget Proposes $4.7 TRILLION in New Taxes

Ford Burns Through Billions, Expects to Lose $12 Billion on Electric Vehicle Line

Hunter Biden Used FBI Mole Named “One-Eye” To Tip Him Off to China Probes: Whistleblower

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Congresswoman demands answers over D.C. children’s hospital Youth Pride Clinic’s ‘life-altering gender procedures’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

It’s about time. There’s much work to do to start protecting children from a dangerous element of the trans community that has mutated into a cult, and is now inflicting grooming and mutilation upon children, allegedly without parental consent.

Such potentially criminal actions need to be subjected to immediate investigations everywhere, for the protection of children. House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx’s (R-NC) investigation is a significant step in the right direction. Children’s National Hospital has already responded. Its tweet, whether true or not, parrots the same tired talking points of the woke, using words such as “welcoming” and “inclusive.”

Four months ago, Virginia Foxx (along with other Congressional Republicans) reiterated her commitment to “oversight” and “lawsuits” amid Biden’s reckless policies and orders. Further investigations, prosecutions and jail time for these egregious assaults upon and mutilation of children would be appropriate for medical practitioners if they are found guilty after due process.

Virginia Foxx demands answers from DC children’s hospital over gender procedures

by Jeremiah Poff, Washington Examiner, March 21, 2023:

EXCLUSIVE — House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is demanding a Washington children’s hospital detail its protocols and policies related to the administering of cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children.

In a letter to Children’s National Hospital President and CEO Kurt Newman that was shared exclusively with the Washington Examiner, Foxx expressed concern that the hospital’s “Youth Pride Clinic” did not once mention the role of parental consent in the prescription of “life-altering surgeries and other medical interventions” for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

“The website for the Clinic states that your primary and specialty care teams provide, among other things, ‘[h]ormone replacement therapy,’” Foxx wrote. “There is no mention of any parental consent requirement for such therapy or for other medical services provided to youth who have not reached the age of majority.”

In August, the hospital drew scrutiny after the popular Twitter account Libs of TikTok released a recording of a call with a hospital staff member who admitted the hospital had performed hysterectomies on children younger than 16. The hospital later denied that it provided gender transition surgeries to minors and scrubbed its website of language that said such procedures were available to patients aged 0-21.

The letter from Foxx seeks answers from the hospital on whether or not it has provided “medical interventions for a minor diagnosed with gender dysphoria” without the consent of both parents, including such procedures as facial reconstruction, chest reconstruction, or genital modifications such as vaginoplasty or phalloplasty.

The letter also seeks records of “reports or inquiries” that hospital staff members have made to child protective services if a parent objected to “medical interventions that would hormonally or surgically transition his or her child” and asks the hospital to reveal the number of children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by the clinic, as well as those who have received hormonal or surgical treatment.

“I am concerned about the use of life-altering, irreversible medical interventions on children with healthy bodies,” Foxx wrote. “Parents are a key part of any medical decisions for their children: parents have the right and responsibility to make medical decisions for their children, and they should be free to do so without undue pressure or interference from medical establishments.”

In a statement to the Washington Examiner, Children’s National Hospital said it is “committed to fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment for all and to serving our LGBTQ+ patients and families in the full spectrum of their care.”….

AUTHOR

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pentagon Doctors Claim 7-Year-Olds Can Consent to Puberty Blockers

World Athletics Bans Trans Biological Males from Competing in Female Track and Field Competitions

Trans Biological Male Wins Female Cycling Event in NYC, CRUSHES Competition

Tennessee ethics lawyer wins new chance to seek damages after being fired for tweets about Islam

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘The Ministry Of Inclusion Has Decreed That These Books Must Be Excluded’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Inclusion is the virtue of our time and all literature making the path to inclusion a bumpy one must be bulldozed.

In the last month, three news stories out of Britain have seized the attention of book lovers. First, with the approval of the Roald Dahl Story Company, holder of the rights to the late author’s works, the publisher Puffin Books (a Penguin Random House imprint) announced that Dahl’s celebrated children’s books would henceforth be published in revised editions reflecting the changes recommended by “sensitivity readers.”

The result would be to eliminate references “to fatness, craziness, ugliness, whiteness (even of bedsheets), blackness (even of tractors) and the great Rudyard Kipling,” among other changes, as Meghan Cox Gurdon wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Christopher Scalia added in the Washington Examiner that “this compulsion not to offend is especially strange regarding Dahl, whose work is distinctively unsettling. His publishers were once proud of that.”

Subsequent reports informed us that purchasers of eBook copies of Dahl’s children’s stories would see these changes made in the copies they had previously bought but that were stored on vendors’ servers—yet another reason to own paper copies of books. Puffin later announced that “classic” editions of Dahl’s books—with unchanged texts—would continue to be available for future purchase. But the bowdlerized editions have not been withdrawn, as they should be.

The second story, which did not get much attention in the United States, was that a similar “sensitivity revision” has been performed on the James Bond books of the late Ian Fleming. The sexism of Agent 007, and his retrograde racial views, were gone over with a fine-tooth comb, with the approval of Ian Fleming Publications. Henceforth James Bond, of all people, will try hard not to disturb the prejudices of a typical humanities professor of 2023. It’s a wonder he’s still licensed to kill.

The third story, which I did not see any US media outlet notice, was that the Research Information and Communications Unit, part of Prevent, itself an arm of the UK’s Home Office charged with enforcing the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, had identified certain books, films, and television shows that were on favored “reading lists” of right-wing terror groups the unit was keeping tabs on.

The list included works by Tolkien, Conrad, Kipling (again!), Tennyson, Chesterton, Huxley, Orwell, Milton, Chaucer, and Shakespeare, as well as films such as The Great Escape, Zulu, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, and the Kenneth Clark art history series “Civilisation”. Suffice it to say one could begin to build a pretty good education on the foundation laid by works the British government is concerned about.

Orwell and Huxley would have understood perfectly what’s going on in these stories. Orwell’s Winston Smith, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, works in the Ministry of Truth, which busily rewrites history from day to day, in accordance with what the Party needs people to believe, regardless of whether it is true. Huxley’s Brave New World doesn’t need a daily rewriting of history. Unlike Orwell’s Oceania, Huxley’s World State has no external enemies, and has achieved a complete break with humanity’s distant past. The few remaining copies of “obsolete” and otherwise forgotten books such as the Bible and the works of Shakespeare are locked away in the possession of the elite World Controllers. And in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, books of every kind are simply forbidden, and are immediately burned by the government’s firemen wherever they are found.

These dystopias all feature one form or another of a war on knowledge and truth by those in power. Their victory in that war can only come if the works of the past are revised to suit present needs, or rendered irrelevant and forgotten, or simply banned altogether. It is alarming that the impulse to treat the past as the enemy of the present, rather than as a precious inheritance, is rising to a commanding position at the heights of our culture.

I don’t mean to suggest that the deeply stupid revisions of the works of minor authors such as Dahl and Fleming represent the advent of a dystopian tyranny. In these cases they will only succeed in making the original works more valuable to preserve, while the insipid revisions will not attract the new readers whose “sensitivities” are being catered to. It is the spirit of the revisionists that is repellent and tyrannical, however.

It is the same spirit identified by George Packer in his recent Atlantic article “The Moral Case Against Equity Language,” where he describes the top-down, flattening, and stultifying dictates of various “inclusive” language guides, crafted by busybodies with no appreciation for plain speaking and no ear for metaphor. It’s the spirit of the “new Roundheads” critiqued by Jonathan Sumption, who simultaneously—and without any apparent discomfort caused by holding two incompatible ideas in their heads—believe both that “knowledge and truth are mere social constructs” and that they know their own countries’ histories are a dreary tale of unrelieved evil.

The impulse to censor—to revise the history and literature we inherit, to ban what we think the worst of it, to banish certain ideas—is as natural to human beings as any of the seven deadly sins. In fact, properly understood, censorship is an essential element of education. There are ideas and books that are fit for children, and others fit for adults. Parents, who have the primary and direct responsibility for the rearing of their children, are right to take an interest in what is assigned to them to read, and what is available to them in the school library.

The publisher’s revisions of Dahl’s books might be well intended, with the best interests of children in mind. But they do both the author and responsible parents an injustice—the former by converting a talented author’s genius into mush, and the latter by usurping their role of controlling what their children should read. Should children be prepared for a robust, open-minded adulthood, or should certain windows in their minds be permanently obscured by blackout curtains?

The first work in western philosophy to take up the matter of education in the formation of a political community was Plato’s Republic. No sooner does Socrates begin to sketch the education of the “guardians” who defend and rule his perfectly just “city in speech” than he finds it necessary to demand the revision or banishment of much of Greek culture’s poetic inheritance, because it depicts the gods as variously warlike, vicious, and deceitful. The guardians of the best city must be paragons of virtue, and so poetry that might harm the development of their virtue must go. Finally, at the end of the work, returning to this subject, Socrates argues that the great poets—above all, Homer—make false claims to knowledge of the virtues, in contrast to the philosophers, who are the poets’ great rivals. Homer must go; he and his ilk are to be banished for the sake of justice.

My own view of the Republic, which I have taught on and off for four decades, is that Plato is ironically highlighting the impossibility of perfect justice, because it requires (among other absurdities explored in the dialogue) an iron grip on the dissemination of ideas, a grip that no one but omnicompetent authorities could maintain. Plato can no more banish Homer from Greek culture than we can banish Shakespeare; these poets have put an indelible stamp on their civilizations. To say they merit our study and engagement is to state the obvious; to say they loom so large we have no choice but to reckon with them would be more accurate.

Yet the attempt to control thought can do incalculable damage, however doomed it is ultimately. And just as Plato’s guardians are to be kept on the path to virtue by the elimination of all examples of vice, so the self-appointed guardians of contemporary culture have decided that “inclusion” is the virtue of our time, and all literature that might make the path to inclusion a bumpy one must be flattened, bulldozed, paved over. No fat or ugly people in the children’s books of Roald Dahl; no Asian stereotypes in the mind of Ian Fleming’s 007. Readers of Kipling are suspect; Kenneth Clark’s exaltation of Chartres has a whiff of chauvinism about it.

A much-noticed piece in The New Yorker recently concerned “The End of the English Major.” Nathan Heller’s lengthy and depressing overview of the decline of student interest in the humanities, literature in particular, only once or twice barely touched upon what may be the most important cause of the malady it richly described. Students’ interest in the humanities has waned for multiple reasons: careerism in a tough economy (but without a corresponding rebound, as in the past, when conditions improve); the impact of the smartphone on reading habits and attention spans; an increasing emphasis by universities themselves on STEM education (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).

But the humanities have neglected the age-old maxim “know thyself.” At one point Heller quotes a Harvard dean and English professor saying, “Young people are very, very concerned about the ethics of representation, of cultural interaction—all these kinds of things that, actually, we think about a lot!” There speaks, not a student mind genuinely curious about literature, but a young drone—with that “ethics of representation” bushwa—already thoroughly schooled by the Ministry of Inclusion. That is, if anyone is actually saying that to the dean at all, which may be doubted.

Later in the article, for just a moment, other voices “suggest that the humanities’ loss of cultural capital has been hastened by the path of humanities scholarship itself.” But it is not simply that it has become too specialized and obscure, as these voices say. It is the relentless drumbeat, in countless English and other humanities departments, for “representation,” and “inclusion,” and the “interrogation” of literature through a “critical,” ideologically focused lens.

No one becomes a scholar of the humanities—of literature, language, philosophy, history—without first becoming a lover of books. And this passion is fed, not by “representation” and “inclusion” of the reader, or by hacking off the sharp corners of square-pegged works of art to fit them into the round holes of our ideological commitments. It is fed by strangeness—by the encounter with worlds hitherto unknown to us, where we begin by feeling disoriented, groping for a sense of direction, and finally getting our “book legs” under us by patient reading and study.

To acquaint students with works great, good, or merely instructive, it is incumbent on teachers not to flatter them with promises of their “inclusion” in the world of ideas, or to assure them that their ideological priors will be built up and reinforced. It is necessary instead to emphasize to them how they will benefit from being taken out of themselves into places where they do not feel at all included or represented, but where by dint of effort they can come to feel they belong after all.

As in the encounter with Roald Dahl’s grotesques, who have simultaneously repelled and fascinated children for sixty years, the future students and scholars of literature must leave behind the comfy confines constructed by the Ministry of Inclusion and begin again with the experience of strangeness.

This article has been republished with permission from The Public Discourse.

AUTHOR

Matthew J. Franck

Matthew J. Franck is Contributing Editor of Public Discourse. He is also Associate Director of the James Madison Program and Lecturer in Politics at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon… More by Matthew J. Franck.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t let women speak, especially not Moira Deeming

Australia has a problem with neo-fascists because it has a problem with liberals

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Democrats Fall Into an Indictment Trap | Rep. Jordan, Posobiec, Beattie | The Charlie Kirk Show

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Charlie Kirk Show’s special guests Congressman Jim Jordan, Jason Posobiec and Darren Beattie discuss the failure of the Democrat’s indictment trap.

The Charlie Kirk Show notes,

One week into the Manhattan Trump indictment drama, and everything has completely flipped on its head. President Trump is practically begging for the photo-op an unjust arrest will bring him, while Democrats are flailing as their case collapses and they realize they’ve snared themselves in their own political trap. Congressman Jim Jordan describes his new investigation into Alvin Bragg’s methods. Darren Beattie analyzes Ron DeSantis’s response, and Jack Posobiec weighs in.

The Charlie Kirk Show is LIVE on Salem Radio stations across the country and simulcasting on Real America’s Voice.

SUBSCRIBE to The Charlie Kirk Show Podcast: http://apple.co/2VCxGsh

©The Charlie Kirk Show. All rights reserved.

Military Under Attack – From Within!

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Air Force Academy Pushes Critical Race Theory Training on Cadets.

With Russia and China making belligerent noises almost daily, it is not comforting to watch our military headed down the dark alley of anti-American wokeism. Yet it is happening, and we now have a clear picture of it at the Air Force Academy.

We received 167 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Defense which show that the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) has made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of cadets.

The records include recommendations that the USAFA considers “Behavioral Science 362, ‘Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality’ as a core class,” that all curriculum be reviewed for “D&I” (diversity and inclusion) topics, and that all cadets and staff be educated in “specific D&I concepts and skills in order to decrease incidents of microaggressions, unconscious bias, etc.”

We obtained the records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (STARRS) against the U.S. Department of Defense for Air Force Academy records regarding “systemic racism,” as well as records of critical race theory at the Academy (Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. v U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:22-cv–02894)).

In the introduction to the September 21, 2020, “U.S. Air Force Academy Internal Racial Disparity Review,” Superintendent Lt. General Jay Silveria writes:

Systemic racism exists in our society. Identity groups, whether based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability, have all experienced less-than-equal treatment in our nation, both historically and persisting in the present day. Ongoing events across our nation and around the world are a stark reminder that racism and social injustice continue to afflict our society. We must acknowledge that at USAFA we are not immune to these issues. What happens outside our gates also happens across our installation, and throughout the Cadet Wing. We would be naive to think otherwise, and negligent to ignore the impact of racism and injustice on our cadets, our permanent party and their families and our entire USAFA community.

Our military superiority relies on an incredibly diverse force of innovative individuals who must work cohesively as a team. There is no place in our words or actions for discrimination or racial bias of any kind, nor can we allow these behaviors to persist in the culture of our institution. A disregard for dignity and respect is corrosive to mission success, and will not be tolerated. To address these issues we must each, and as a cohesive team, look inward to continually examine ourselves and our institution for the prevalence of racism, discrimination, and injustice.

To that end, I directed what I hope will be an enduring, lasting effort to promote racial
understanding and diversity in the context of leadership. These actions included the
establishment of a Critical Conversations Working Group (CCWG), led by the Center for Character Development (CCLD), to facilitate recurring USAFA-wide critical conversations for cadets and permanent party. In addition, my Director of Staff and the Director of Equal Opportunity co-chaired an internal assessment and review for biases within our policies, processes, practices, curriculum, and artifacts. The objective of the assessment was to identify racial disparities unique to USAFA.

Under a heading “Limitations” in the “Purpose and Context” section the review states:

We must continually work to build future leaders and reinforce the principles that underpin our “Leader of Character” framework- living honorably, lifting others, and elevating performance- in the context of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion, and respect for others. As an institution that develops officers to lead a diverse force, USAFA must instill these principles in those we teach and lead. These young men and women will ultimately shape the future culture of our military, and in turn influence the larger American society. As such, there is no place in our words and actions for discrimination or racial bias of any kind at USAFA, or in our Air and Space Forces.

Within the section titled “Diversity and Inclusion at USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy],” under the heading “Additional Data Sources,” the review cites a 2020 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey of cadets in the Class of 2024:

The survey collected information on student’s opinions on racial understanding, racial discrimination, preferential treatment (based on race/ethnicity), and other D&I (diversity & inclusion) related topics. Cursory analysis of the CL24 responses indicates:

  • 16% of our incoming cadets find that helping to promote racial understanding is not
    important (17% of Caucasian cadets, 15% of Minority cadets). The remainder of the
    cadets responded that it was somewhat important (38%), very important (28%), or
    essential (18 %).
  • 24% of our incoming cadets agreed that racial discrimination is no longer a major
    problem in America. The remainder of the cadets disagreed with that statement.
  • 75% of our incoming cadets rated themselves as average or above average when
    comparing themselves to the average person their own age in terms of their
    understanding of others.
  • One question asked whether the student agrees/disagrees whether individuals from
    disadvantaged social backgrounds should be given preferential treatment in college
    65% of the Caucasian and 45% of the Minority cadets disagreed while 35%
    of the Caucasian and 55% of the Minority cadets agreed with that statement.

Later in that section, under the heading “Equal Opportunity (USAF/EO,” the Air Force Academy’s Equal Opportunity office recommends the Academy:

Consider implementing Behavioral Science 362, ‘Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality’ as a core class or pulling the content into shorter transition-week training opportunities spread across a cadet’s USAFA career. The material is highly regarded by cadets and graduates, and the information could be implemented on a larger scale (to include training for basics and sessions for each year group) to help cadets mature into D&I professionals for the Air Force.

In the section titled “The Way Forward,” the review introduces a “Triple Threat Group,” which was established in June 2020 “after national conversations surrounding police brutality, release of news articles addressing racial disparities in the AF discipline system, and the height of racial tension.” The review continues: “Triple Threat’s ongoing efforts align theory and considerations on how USAFA could address racial tension and unrest using a 3-tiered, ‘triple threat’ approach of Acknowledgment, Action, and Advocacy. In clarifying the need to address this issue, as well as to demonstrate the importance of these efforts, Triple Threat solicited shared stories from current cadets and graduates from the past year that captured realities and perceptions that bring awareness to the ‘Black experience” at USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy].”

Also in that section of the review is a heading titled “Recommendations” that includes:

  • Ensure Diversity and Inclusion is incorporated into USAFA [U.S. Air Force Academy] guidance and policy. [Academy’s] Diversity and Inclusion plan must be updated as a strategic document guiding D&I [diversity and inclusion] efforts across the institution.
  • Expand the DF-led [dean of faculty] curriculum review to ensure all [Academy] curriculum, as identified under the Course of Instruction, is reviewed for D&I [diversity and inclusion] topics.
  • Educate and train cadets and staff on more specific D&I [diversity and inclusion] concepts and skills in order to decrease incidents of microaggressions, unconscious bias, etc., and enhance retention/inclusion. In addition, we must train our leaders across the institution on how to facilitate critical conversations on racial issues within their workplaces, so all Airmen can bring their full selves to work and leaders can create more inclusive spaces. Correlated to this effort is the need to develop a more robust racial bias incident reporting system with associated accountability and rehabilitation processes to restore relationships in the event biases or microaggressions are experienced.

In the “Triple Threat Proposal,” appendix, the review calls for “Cultural Immersion Movie Nights:”

Cultural Immersion Movie Nights is an initiative we propose to be held at Arnold Hall throughout the academic semesters. This initiative will allow cadets and permanent party to learn about racism, racial discrimination and the several historical events and policies that have impacted minorities through cinema. The goal is to help inform all members at this institution of the cultural history of other races and thus bring greater unity and understanding of other groups within the Cadet Wing.

The recently obtained documents also include an August 17, 2021, email, in which the sender and recipients are redacted, that discusses required textbook readings on “prejudice and discrimination,” which includes:

Identify examples of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination.

Describe how explicit and implicit prejudice differ.

Describe some of the social, emotional, and cognitive roots of prejudice.

The email goes on to state that Academy cadets were “asked to watch a video of the well-known ‘Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes’ demonstration.”

According to STARRS President and CEO Dr. Ronald J. Scott, Jr., Colonel, USAF, Retired, USAFA ’73: “Diversity, equity, and inclusion training stems from Marxist-inspired ideology known as critical race theory. While attractive to those who believe in justice and equal opportunity, it empowers those who hold positions of authority or influence to coerce others into compliance. This phenomenon is what C.S. Lewis wrote about when he grouped people into ‘the conditioners’ and ‘the conditioned’ in his 1940s book ‘The Abolition of Man.’”

These documents show our military and its rising leadership are under attack from within. The documents confirm U.S. Air Force Academy leadership is obsessed with anti-American critical race theory and seeks to punish and smear cadets through leftist indoctrination programs.

Our lawsuits and FOIA requests on critical race theory and other leftist extremism are extensive:

In November 2022, we separately sued the Air Force Academy for training material records on critical race theory.

In July 2022, we sued the Department of Defense for records related to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) implementing critical race theory (CRT) in the training of naval recruits.

In August, our client David Flynn, who was removed from his position as head football coach after exercising his right as a parent-citizen to raise concerns about critical race theory and Black Lives Matter propaganda in his daughter’s seventh-grade history class, settled his civil rights lawsuit against his former employers at Dedham Public Schools. As part of the settlement, the Superintendent of Dedham Public Schools, Michael Welch, acknowledged “the important and valid issues” raised by Flynn and specific changes in school policies because of Flynn’s complaint, including banning teachers from promoting Black Lives Matter to students online.

Also in August, we sued on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. The lawsuit was filed against the superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Board of Education for violating the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.

In June, we received records revealing critical race theory instruction at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. One training slide contains a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]

Records produced in April 2022 from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) show the government agency responsible for regulating credit unions required “inclusion and unconscious bias training” for the agency’s employees and contractors and offered advice on how to recognize and address alleged “microaggressions” in the workplace.

Records produced in February 2022 from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) included a PowerPoint presentation titled “Race and gender based microaggressions” that was used for training at the organization.

Two sets of records we obtained in November 2021 related to the teaching of critical race theory in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Maryland’s largest school system, included a training course with information about a book titled “Antiracist Baby” that introduces the youngest readers to “the concept and power of antiracism,” and says it’s the “perfect gift” for “ages baby to age 3.”

Records from Loudoun County, VA, obtained in October 2021 revealed a coordinated effort to advance critical race theory initiatives in Loudoun County public schools despite widespread public opposition.

A training document provided to us in October 2021 by a whistleblower in the Westerly School District of Rhode Island, details how its schools are using teachers to push critical race theory in classrooms. The training course was assembled by the left-leaning Highlander Institute and cites quotes from Bettina Love, from whom the Biden administration distanced itself publicly after her statements equating “whiteness” to oppression.

Records produced in June 2021 by Wellesley Public Schools in Massachusetts confirmed the use of “affinity spaces” that divide students and staff based on race as a priority and objective of the school district’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” plan. The school district also admitted that between September 1, 2020, and May 17, 2021, it created “five distinct” segregated spaces.

Heavily redacted records we obtained in May 2021from Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland included documents related to their $454,000 “Anti-racist system audit” and critical race theory classes. Students were taught that the phrase “Make America Great Again” was an example of “covert white supremacy.”

You can see that your Judicial Watch is second to none in trying to expose and stop the CRT menace to the American way. Thank you for your support of this essential work, as we couldn’t do it without you!

College Gets Millions to Develop Journalist Tool to Combat “Misinformation”

The Biden administration (and the Deep State under Trump) has become obsessed with censoring our speech and using our tax dollars to abuse our First Amendment rights. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the latest.

The public university that recently got more than half a million dollars from the U.S. government to combat science misinformation in black communities is also receiving a chunk of change from American taxpayers to develop a “precision tool providing journalists with guidance against misinformation.” The fact-checking engine is called Course Correct and the academics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who are creating it assert it will help journalists identify trending misinformation on social media, strategically correct false claims and test the effectiveness of corrections in real time. “Challenges of misinformation are not restricted to elections and COVID or to a particular community,” according to one of the professors working on the project. “Countering misinformation will require vigilance and adaptation.” And apparently a lot of money from the government.

Public funding will flow through the National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal agency established by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science, advance national health and secure national defense. In two separate grants the NSF is awarding the University of Wisconsin-Madison north of $5.7 million to develop Course Correct. The first grant, for $750,000, focuses on delivering an innovative, three-step method to identify, test, and correct real-world instances of online disinformation by using computational means such as language processing, machine learning, social network analysis and computer vision to identify posts and accounts susceptible to misinformation. “Democracy and public health in the United States rely on trust in institutions,” the grant announcement states. “Skepticism regarding the integrity of U.S. elections and hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccines are two consequences of a decline in confidence in basic political processes and core medical institutions. Social media serve as a major source of delegitimizing information about elections and vaccines, with networks of users actively sowing doubts about election integrity and vaccine efficacy, fueling the spread of misinformation.”

The initial NSF investment will support and empower efforts by journalists, developers, and citizens to fact-check information, the grant document says. They urgently need tools that can enable testing of fact-checking stories on topics such as elections and vaccines across social media platforms like Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook, according to the science agency. In short, the project is motivated by a desire to understand and help address what the Biden administration calls “two democratic and public health crises facing the U.S.” They are described as skepticism regarding the integrity of U.S. elections and hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccines. “Both of these crises are fueled by online misinformation,” the NSF writes in the grant document.

The bigger chunk of money—up to $5 million—will pay for professors to test and refine the new, publicly funded Course Correct, which is being promoted as a Precision Guidance Against Misinformation. Creators of the digital dashboard will partner with local, state, national and international news and fact-checking organizations to create misinformation networks and test how effective the new mechanism is in helping journalists detect and correct misinformation. The focus will be on diffusers rather than producers of misinformation and to embed the experimental program into newsrooms worldwide. “By the end of Phase II, Course Correct intends to have further developed the digital dashboard in ways that could ultimately be adopted by other end users such as public health organizations, election administration officials, and commercial outlets,” according to the NHS.

The generous allocations for the costly endeavor come on the heels of another government-funded project at the same school to meet the Biden administration’s mission of combating disinformation. Just a few months ago University of Wisconsin-Madison professors received $576,061 to fight science-related misinformation and misperceptions in black communities. The goal of that initiative is to counter inequity and mistrust in scientific information and understand science misinformation in black communities, according to the NSF. “Black American experiences can pose particular challenges for effective communication on issues related to science and medicine, and recent misinformation campaigns have increasingly sought to capitalize on beliefs underlying mistrust within Black communities to spread misinformation,” according to that grant document. The professors who received the money assert that “Black Americans continue to face oppression and medical racism.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: How the Communists Take Down Freedom

/in , , , , , , , /by

Did you know that in every country taken over by communism, all the isms always follow the same plan? Cuba, at one time, was a very wealthy country and was the role model for a successful communist country.

First, they network into an organization. Then they lie, cheat, and steal about something or someone to create distrust, chaos, and riots. They always blame others for the things they do. They have no empathy and use children as their slaves.

Everything is connected. Nothing is random. Everyone follows the same plan. ALL PLANS ARE BASED ON LIES.

They only care about MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL

JOIN US as we talk about RINOs and how the communists take over a country.

GUESTS

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT

Chris Wright is an independent liberty activist who travels in Tea Party and libertarian circles. Anticommunism is one of his main areas of focus. He started the Anticommunism Action Team (ACAT) in 2013 to counter communist influence here and abroad. ACAT’s Speakers Bureau has presented at the Heritage Foundation and Leadership Institute and has been on Breitbart and LevinTV. ACAT speakers (survivors of communism and subject matter experts) are available free of charge anywhere in the world through videoconferencing. Free newsletter – your contact information is never sold or shared. His website is the home of the Anticommunism Action Team. Website: www.Spider-and-the-Fly.com.

DR. ORLANDO GUIÈRREZ-BORONAT

Dr. Orlando Gutiérrez-Boronat is an award-winning author, co-founder, and spokesperson for the Cuban Democratic Directorate, an NGO seeking human rights and democratic change in Cuba funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. He launched Radio República, which reaches Cubans on the island every day with uncensored news and information through shortwave radio. He was instrumental in the creation of the Justice Cuba Commission, which investigates the crimes against humanity of the Cuban regime. An invited lecturer at Georgetown University and a community leader, Dr. Gutiérrez-Boronat holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy of International Studies from the University of Miami.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | RSS

EDITORS NOTE: This The Prism of America’s Education podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Inflation Reduction? Dems’ Climate Spending Spree Could Cost $1.2 Trillion, Analysts Say

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could cost roughly $1.2 trillion in green energy subsidies, more than four times an initial government forecast of outlays, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing analysts from Goldman Sachs.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially forecast that the law, a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s efforts to decarbonize the U.S. economy, would cost the government $370 billion to boost investments in green technology, according to Bloomberg. Goldman Sachs’ findings mirror those of analytics firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which reported in February that the estimated cost of battery manufacturing tax breaks would be roughly $136 billion over the next 10 years, more than four times the $30.6 billion estimated by the CBO.

“Early analysis of the IRA relied on unrealistic expectations to keep cost estimates down,” Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “As time has progressed and those rosy forecasts are pushed outside the realm of possibility, the real cost is becoming increasingly clear.”

Goldman analysts estimate that private companies, spurred by government benefits, will invest an additional $3 trillion, Bloomberg reported. Biden specifically called out “every single” Republican for siding with “special interests” over the American people in opposing the bill, in remarks made after he signed it into law in August.

The IRA offers a variety of tax credits and subsidies to wind, solar and battery production and encourages U.S.-based mining by linking battery subsidies to a requirement that at least 40% of all minerals are mined domestically or from certain allies. The bill also expanded a federal  loan program to support research and development of advanced batteries to be used in vehicles.

The massive climate bill would have an effect on inflation that was “statistically indistinguishable from zero,” according to a preliminary estimate made by the University of Pennsylvania Penn Wharton Budget Model made in July. President Joe Biden last August touted a letter signed by 120 economists, including some Nobel prize winners, which alleged that the bill would put “downward pressure” on inflation, based on a CBO estimate that the bill would cut government spending by $300 billion over 10 years, the Associated Press reported contemporaneously.

Then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy argued at the time that the bill would spend “half-a-trillion of your money,” building on “trillions in wasteful spending that caused runaway inflation” in an August debate on the bill.

“Passing this bill today means more expensive bills for Americans tomorrow. And anyone who says otherwise isn’t telling the truth,” McCarthy said. “Your pocketbook is their plan to fund more inflationary spending.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Staggering Price Tag, Logistical Hurdles Make Biden’s Climate Agenda A ‘Fool’s Errand,’ Report Says

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

When Leaders Get Scared

/in , , , , , , /by

While it may look like the United States is being tough and forceful in Ukraine, the reverse is true. The US is showing incredible weakness, and it is wearing it on its sleeve.

Let’s start with Ukraine. The US has gone all out to try and help Ukraine win a victory over the Russians.

The Biden administration wants this to happen for two reasons: to show that Biden is not a wimp and won’t cut and run like he did in Afghanistan (and on this the 20th anniversary of the War in Iraq, like his predecessor Obama did by pulling US forces out of Iraq) and that he wants to “strengthen” NATO by eventually putting a NATO army in Ukraine.

The reason for not wanting to look like a wimp is self-evident and does not need any further explanation, other than to say that Washington elites have bought into the false narrative that Ukraine is a glowing democracy and we should defend it. Of course, the US disrupted Ukraine’s free politics and pushed the rebellion against a properly elected government.

Likewise, the US also has kept its mouth shut about the political repression in Ukraine, the jailing of political opponents, and the complete takeover of all the media in the country. Ukraine also has mistreated the Russian-speaking population, essentially putting pressure on Russian speakers to leave the country.

The latest twist on this highway of suppression is Zelensky-led attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church, with the most recent manifestation closing a centuries-old monastery and forcing out the Orthodox Monks from the property. Zelensky, to make Washington happy, is pretending to go after corrupt officials in a country famous for corruption (both under the old Soviet leadership and the post-Soviet Ukrainian regimes).

But, as anyone could quickly grasp, expanding NATO is a liability for the United States and the other NATO members. By creating a border that is to be extended by thousands of miles without actually expanding NATO’s military capabilities, is a disaster in waiting.

Moreover, NATO expansion is unnecessarily destabilizing for Europe and the world, because it jacks up the tension between the two big nuclear powers in Europe, the US and Russia. While no one has honestly done the math, a target-rich NATO is dangerous.

Right now, neither the US nor its NATO partners (rather, it should be said, very junior partners) have the wherewithal to defend the territories of NATO before the latest expansion to Finland and Sweden; and when Ukraine is added the situation becomes even riskier.

Indeed, perhaps the key accomplishment of Biden and his friends in Europe, has been to put huge sanctions on Russia. This has removed Russia as a trading, commercial, and resource partner for Europe, meaning the Russians have little to protect in Europe by way of investments and supplier and trade agreements.

Even more critically, Russia has reoriented its economy to China and India, which together are well over 2.2 billion people (not counting Russia which adds another 150 million). Russia is strong on raw materials, including natural gas and petroleum, important minerals such as titanium, agriculture, especially wheat, and military technology, including rockets and nuclear. What Russia does not have is semiconductor technology, but China does.

A second major consequence of US and EU sanctions on Russia is that Russia’s strategic partnership with China has now expanded, and will continue to grow. This is a challenge to the United States which saw itself as the world’s Hegemon, as the sole Super Power.  Whether this was ever true is open to doubt, but in the minds of Washington’s policy-makers, it was indelibly implanted. It still is, but now it is demonstrably not true.

In a recent meeting of former senior military officials, almost all of them wanted to send far more weapons to Ukraine and maybe NATO forces. This kind of thinking is a great example of not understanding the US strategic position objectively, instead of ideologically and myopically.

One of the first big byproducts is the China-brokered Saudi-Iran deal restoring diplomatic ties between the two states. We do not know the full extent of the deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but part of the arrangement is likely economic, Saudi help for Iran in getting its economy back on track, something critical to the Iranian regime’s survival.

The Saudis also agreed to shut down the anti-Iran propaganda they support, and the Iranians agreed to slow down, if not stop, shipping weapons to the Houthis in Yemen, probably also pushing them to take part in peace negotiations in the country. Almost instantly, Iran’s status in the region has been raised yet again.

The icing on the cake was a meeting at the Ben Gurion airport in Israel between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  While Austin affirmed that the US would “never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon” he made no concrete commitment and, according to unauthorized accounts from the meeting, told Netanyahu the US would not support any attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, a major setback for Israel’s security.

Exactly why Austin retreated isn’t completely clear: it could be that US assurances to Israel are non-functional (i.e., fake). It could also be that the US has never been weaker, and any military action in the Middle East is insupportable because of Ukraine.

The Saudis of course did what any country would do if it thought its main ally had taken a hike.  The course the Saudis are following as a result does not necessarily augur anything good for peace and security in the Gulf region, more so after Iran has put in place a credible nuclear force with which to intimidate its neighbors.

There are some indications that Taiwan may be looking for a way to accommodate China, lest the US not support them in crunch time as China moves more forces around the island.  Former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, from Taiwan’s Kuomintang (Nationalist) party, once headed by Chang Kai-shek, is off to China, the first visit to the Chinese mainland by a former Taiwan President since 1949.

The Kuomintang is not the ruling party in Taiwan, but Ma’s visit is nonetheless highly significant. He is briefing Taiwan officials before he arrives in China during the last week of March, and he has agreed to brief them on the way back.

Obviously, his visit is more than a private, sentimental journey to see old relatives and visit family temples; he almost certainly will be carrying messages both ways.

In the meantime, despite US rhetoric, critical defense equipment isn’t being delivered to Taiwan, either because we don’t have it to deliver, or the Biden administration has decided to hold up deliveries. By far the more egregious is the failure to deliver new F-16 aircraft on time, with delays said to be between two and five years. The Biden administration says this is a manufacturing hold-up, nothing more.

But Taiwan’s officials won’t believe the excuse – and should not in any case. Meanwhile, US$14 billion in defense equipment for Taiwan is delayed. Taiwan’s leaders can’t be happy or feel secure.

Ma Ying-jeou met with Mainland top leader Xi Jinping in November 2015 in their capacity as the leader of Taiwan and Mainland China respectively. In short, this is what happens when allies and friends see the handwriting on the wall. How long will it be before NATO countries start to run for cover?

Originally published by Asia Times

AUTHOR

Stephen Bryen

Senior Fellow.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Syrian Civil War: How a country was completely destroyed

Beijing’s subversive political warfare in the Pacific

Securing America – Why should Americans care about Israel?

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

House Passes Legislation To Give Parents More Say In Their Kids’ Education

/in , , , , , , , /by

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a piece of legislation on Friday aimed at giving parents more of a say in school curriculum and more control over their children’s education.

In a 213 – 208 vote, the House approved the Parents Bill of Rights, which would require school districts to annually post their curriculum online, allowing parents to review the materials. The bill, considered the “Politics over Parents Act” by Democratic politicians, moves to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to pass.

“My colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that parents always have a seat at the table when it comes to their child’s upbringing and education,” Republican Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Today, we kept a key promise made in the Commitment to America by passing the Parents Bill of Rights. This is a crucial step in fighting to increase transparency and defend the rights of parents.”

Under the legislation, school districts must notify parents of any violence that occurs on campus. School districts are also required to provide parents with a list of materials students can access at the library, the bill stated.

The bill mandates that school districts take parents’ input into consideration when drafting policies, requiring that school boards respect the First Amendment rights of those who voice their concerns at meetings. Teachers must host two in person teacher-parent meetings per year, under the legislation.

An approved amendment to the bill, sponsored by Republican Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, requires school districts to alert parents if their child is sharing a bathroom, locker room or sports team with a student of the opposite biological sex.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the bill “facist” and said the legislation would out members of the LGBT community “before they were ready,” the New York Post reported.

“When we talk about progressive values, I can say what my progressive value is, and that is freedom over fascism,” Ocasio-Cortez said according to the New York Post.

“The administration does not support H.R. 5 in its current form because the bill does not actually help parents support their children at school,” the White House said in a statement to NBC News. “Moreover, instead of making LGBTQI+ students feel included in their school community, it puts them at higher risk. The administration strongly supports actions that empower parents to engage with their children’s teachers and schools, like enabling parents to take time off to attend school meetings. Legislation should not politicize our children’s education.”

Around the country, parents are pushing back against school boards to have a say in what materials are available in schools; a group of Maine parents created a database of 82 sexually explicit books found in the school district’s libraries. In California, several parents compiled a database of age-inappropriate content in the district libraries.

“As a mom of two and a former educator, I believe for children to succeed, they need families and schools to work together as partners throughout the learning process,” Republican Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement to the DCNF. “After spending nearly a year and a half working to pass this bill, I’m grateful that we’re finally able to advance this critical legislation.”

AUTHOR

REAGAN REESE

Contributor.

RELATED VIDEO: AOC Says That The Republican Parents Rights Bill Is “Fascism”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Teacher Calls For ‘Getting Rid Of Girls And Boys’ To Break Gender Binary

‘Have Our Voices Heard’: House Republicans Gather Florida Parents’ Input Ahead Of Education Bill Vote

‘Intimidating Parents Into Silence’: Garland’s FBI Order On School Meetings Had ‘Chilling’ Effect, Attorney Testifies

‘I Didn’t Think It Would Be This Quick’: Another Florida School Terminates Its Chief Diversity Official

Dem Rep Claims Parental Rights In Education Bill Will Lead To ‘Hate, Bigotry’ And ‘Death’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.