DEA REPORTS RECORD DEATHS FROM DRUG OVERDOSES: How a broken southern border allows narcotics to flood America.

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) just published the 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment that provides an extensive analysis of the drug crisis in the United States.

Here are a few quick “takeaways” published in the report that paint a disconcerting picture:

  • In 1999 drug poisoning in the U.S. accounted for 16,849 deaths, while deaths from suicide, homicide, firearms and motor vehicles accounted for more deaths than did drug poisoning.
  • In 2009 deaths attributed to drug poisoning moved into first place with 37,004 such fatalities.
  • Since 2009 drug poisoning has accounted for more deaths than did the other causes of death, with a sharp upward trend in the number of such fatalities.  In 2013, 43,982 deaths were attributed to drug poisoning, in 2014 that number increased to 47,055, in 2015 the number jumped to 52,404 and in 2016 that number had skyrocketed to 63, 632 deaths.

Here are excerpts from the report that are of extreme importance:

Heroin: Heroin use and availability continue to increase in the United States. The occurrence of heroin mixed with fentanyl is also increasing. Mexico remains the primary source of heroin available in the United States according to all available sources of intelligence, including law enforcement investigations and scientific data. Further, significant increases in opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico allow Mexican TCOs to supply high-purity, low-cost heroin, even as U.S. demand has continued to increase.

Fentanyl and Other Synthetic Opioids: Illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids — primarily sourced from China and Mexico—are now the most lethal category of opioids used in the United States. Traffickers— wittingly or unwittingly— are increasingly selling fentanyl to users without mixing it with any other controlled substances and are also increasingly selling fentanyl in the form of counterfeit prescription pills. Fentanyl suppliers will continue to experiment with new fentanyl-related substances and adjust supplies in attempts to circumvent new regulations imposed by the United States, China, and Mexico.

Cocaine: Cocaine availability and use in the United States have rebounded, in large part due to the significant increases in coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia. As a result, past-year cocaine initiates and cocaine-involved overdose deaths are exceeding 2007 benchmark levels. Simultaneously, the increasing presence of fentanyl in the cocaine supply, likely related to the ongoing opioid crisis, is exacerbating the re-merging cocaine threat.

Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine remains prevalent and widely available, with most of the methamphetamine available in the United States being produced in Mexico and smuggled across the Southwest Border (SWB). Domestic production occurs at much lower levels than in Mexico, and seizures of domestic methamphetamine laboratories have declined steadily for many years.

Gangs: National and neighborhood-based street gangs and prison gangs continue to dominate the market for the street-sales and distribution of illicit drugs in their respective territories throughout the country. Struggle for control of these lucrative drug trafficking territories continues to be the largest factor fueling the street-gang violence facing local communities. Meanwhile, some street gangs are working in conjunction with rival gangs in order to increase their drug revenues, while individual members of assorted street gangs have profited by forming relationships with friends and family associated with Mexican cartels.

Clearly our porous borders, particularly the U.S./Mexican border, enable narcotics to flood into America with disastrous results including violent crimes, loss of life, lives ruined by drug addiction, and the impact on families and especially children, and money that finances criminal organizations and terror organizations. As I noted in my recent article Trump Connects the Dots on Dangers of Illegal Immigration, terror organizations such as Iran-sponsored Hezbollah increasingly have been working in close coordination with Latin American drug trafficking organizations to move drugs and aliens, including terrorist sleeper agents, into the United States.

Although I was an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) officer for my entire federal career, I spent roughly half of my career assigned to work with other law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations into narcotics-related crimes. Consequently my 30-year career with the former INS, the forerunner to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), provided me with an intimate view of the multifaceted immigration system. It also provided me with an insider’s understanding of the drug crisis in the United States.

Back in 1988 I became the first INS agent to be assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division (UID) of the DEA in New York City. For nearly four years I worked in close cooperation with the DEA and numerous other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. I also worked closely with foreign law enforcement agencies of countries such as Israel, Canada, Great Britain and Japan.

While I was assigned to UID I conducted a study of arrest statistics and was startled to find that back then, approximately 60% of the individuals arrested by the DEA Task Force in NYC were identified as “foreign born.”

In 1991, I was promoted to the position of INS Senior Special Agent and was assigned, for the final ten years of my career, to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I continue to work with diverse law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations into large-scale drug trafficking organizations from around the world.

The issue of border security has been one of the key issues frequently discussed by the media and by a succession of administrations. For decades efforts to determine border security have been linked to the number of arrests made by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Of course those statistics are not as effective a metric to determine border security as many believe. Arrest statistics generally act as sort of Rorschach test where you could say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

If the Border Patrol arrests more illegal aliens, does it mean that more illegal aliens are attempting to run our borders or that the Border Patrol is becoming more effective at finding and arresting illegal aliens, perhaps because new technology has been brought to bear?

If the Border Patrol arrests fewer illegal aliens, does it mean that fewer aliens have been running our borders or that the smugglers have gotten better at evading the Border Patrol?

Several years ago when I was interviewed by Neil Cavuto on his program at Fox News he attempted to draw conclusions about the level of illegal immigration based on Border Patrol arrests. I told Neil that attempting to use arrest statistics to accurately gauge the number of illegal aliens present in the United States is a bit like taking attendance by asking those not present to raise their hands!

I told Neil that the best and most reliable metric to determine border security is the price and availability of cocaine and heroin since those narcotics are illegal and are not produced in the United States. In point of fact, every gram of those and other such substances are smuggled into the United States and provide graphic and incontrovertible evidence of a failure of border security.

The fact that heroin is as available and as inexpensive as it is provides clear evidence that our borders are as porous as a sieve.

Furthermore, because those substances are smuggled into the United States from foreign countries, the leaders of most of the drug trafficking organizations are foreign nationals who send their workers to the United States to set up shop.

These aliens are often long-time associates they have come to trust and, because their family members remain in their home countries, if they commit transgressions, their relatives will pay a heavy price indeed.

Finally, as drug use has skyrocketed and as the Drug Trafficking Organizations have become more sophisticated and violents and have gained ever more control over the smuggling routes, human trafficking is now often linked to the drug smugglers who often use the aliens they smuggle as “mules”– beasts of burden who carry drugs on their person when they cross our borders.

Those involved in the drug trade not only violate drug, finance and weapons laws; they violate immigration laws.

Meanwhile politicians from both parties have refused to fund the vital border wall to help protect America and Americans from the influx of illegal aliens and narcotics.

The Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and have unbelievably called for the disbanding of ICE altogether. However, neither political party has ever sought to actually hire enough ICE agents to deter illegal immigration or contribute the sort of resources to such multi-agency task forces as OCDETF or the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), where the unique authorities and tools that our immigration laws can uniquely provide to help investigate and dismantle transnational gangs and international terror organizations.

I addressed the nexus between sanctuary policies and the drug trade in my article, New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade.

This willful failure of our political elite to bring our immigration laws to bear to protect America and Americans, and to combat transnational gangs and international terrorist organizations, was the focus of my recent article, Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.

It is time for Americans to find true sanctuary in their towns and cities.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bolivia: The Next Explosion After Venezuela and Nicaragua

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Just How Anti-American is Senator Kamala Harris?

/in , , , /by

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris once again demonstrated her vitriol and antipathy towards an American law-enforcement institution. This time, she directed her leftist, anti-American sentiment to one of the most challenged, selfless, and invaluable institutions of the federal government: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In a Senate confirmation hearing for ICE Director Nominee Ronald Vitiello, Kamala Harris asked whether he shared the perception that ICE was causing fear and mistrust like the KKK.

“Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” she asked.

Vitiello, trying to maintain his composure responded, “I do not see a parallel between the power and authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion [and the KKK].”

Kamala’s answer was just as intellectually hollow, “Sir how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is being perceived by certain communities?”

Really, Senator?  Which communities, exactly?

Clearly, what Harris was aiming to do was express her own objectionable opinion that ICE is somehow like the KKK.  But Harris knew that if she took ownership of such an opinion, she would get irreparably attacked.  What was worse in her mind, is that she would lose support for her desired presidential race.

So instead, Harris chose to claim that there was some sort of perception by a made-up group that ICE was as racially motivated and evil as the KKK, which, by the way, arose as the militant arm of the Democratic Party, the same party to which Harris pledges her allegiance.  Predictably, Harris has demonstrated no support of the existence of such a perception of ICE, or even of a community where such a perception exists.  Similarly, The Federalist Pages been unable to identify a single major poll that asked whether ICE and its activities are in any way reminiscent or comparable to the KKK.

In fact, one poll performed by Politico in July 2018 showed the opposite.  In this poll, 54% favored retaining ICE while only 25% wished to “get rid of” it. Additionally, in that same poll, a plurality, or 40%, looked less favorably upon a congressional candidate wishing to get rid of ICE.  This compared to 26% who favored such candidates.  Interestingly, this latter percentage was smaller than those who either didn’t care one way or the other, or had no opinion, combined (33%).

The fact is that Harris used this fictitious, fabricated community to express what is, in fact, her own rancid opinion about law enforcing, patriotic, self-sacrificing Americans.

Of course, Kamala Harris’s cowardly attack did not shield her from scorn.   In fact, there is a community that perceives Harris to be anti-American.  Not that she is, of course.  But that’s the perception of many communities.

One American who wished to remain anonymous even asked, “How can Kamala remain a Senator or think of becoming President when she is unaware that there is a community that perceives her to be anti-American?”

As of this writing, Senator Harris has not responded to numerous attempts by The Federalist Pages to have her answer this question.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Pushed A Top Executive To Publicly Disavow Support For Trump, Then Fired Him

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Senator Kamala Harris’ Facebook page.

Trump Must Reverse Obama Appointed Judge’s Decision on Asylum Seekers

/in , , , , /by

An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred.  In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.

Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country.

There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself.  The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.  For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” which is exactly what the President did.

What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate.  Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.  To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue.  In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country,

So, where are we in this situation?

Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs.  The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.

First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste.  The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.  The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Mexico Is Deporting Migrant Caravan Members So We Don’t Have To

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Mike Wilson on Unsplash.

Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban on Illegal Aliens: The ruling ignores the U.S. Constitution, 9/11 Commission Report and common-sense.

/in , , , , /by

On November 20, 2018 the Washington Post reported: “In blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, federal judge blocks asylum ban for migrants who enter illegally from Mexico.”

Here is how the Washington Post article began:

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.

In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.

The judge’s order remains in effect until Dec. 19, when the court will consider arguments for a permanent order. The administration offered no immediate comment, but has routinely appealed adverse decisions.

The president’s decree, now blocked, came just after the midterm election campaign, in which Trump made immigration and national security the GOP’s “closing argument“. He and his allies spread fear about the “Caravan heading to the Southern Border,” which, as he asserted without evidence in one pre-election tweet, included “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners.” In another, he warned of “some very bad thugs and gang members.” Labeling the movements of Central American migrants a “national emergency,” Trump last month deployed active-duty troops to the border.

But the federal judge said the president could not shift asylum policy on his own.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” wrote the judge, nominated to the federal bench in 2012 by President Barack Obama. He reasoned that the “failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”

To begin with, we must apply a bit of common-sense to the President’s policies given the totality of circumstances that exist today.

The “War on Terror” is ongoing.  The “All Clear” has not sounded and is not likely to sound for years to come. As I wrote in my recent commentary, The Impending Alien Invasion, Iran-backed Hezbollah operatives are working in Latin America in conjunction with drug trafficking and human smuggling organizations to flood America with drugs, aliens and sleeper agents.

The 9/11 Commission has been clear on the nexus between multiple failures of the immigration system and the ability of terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves and go about their deadly preparations.  The 9/11 Commission did not only focus on the attacks of September 11, 2001 but also looked back a decade into the actions of other terrorists and found that common thread running through their methodology.

President Trump’s policy applied to aliens who sought to avoid the vetting process conducted at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection inspectors who are guided in their decisions by Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the classes of aliens who are to be excluded.  Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, spies and aliens who were previously deported. Additionally, aliens are also excludible if they would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed; and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

It must be presumed that the only reason that an alien would seek to evade that inspections process is because he/she knows that he belongs to one or more categories of aliens who are statutorily ineligible to be lawfully admitted into the United States.

Failures of border security have also enabled transnational gangs such as MS-13 and drug trafficking organizations which easily traverse the porous Mexican border and infiltrate towns and cities across the United States.

Graphic evidence of the nexus between drug trafficking and violent crimes at the hands of the drug cartels is being currently provided at the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in the federal court in Brooklyn, New York for the Eastern District of New York.  As the New York Post’s headline reported, El Chapo’s trial opens with chilling details.

Incredibly the presiding judge at that trial has agreed the highly unusual measure of keeping the names and addresses of the jurors a secret to protect them, in Brooklyn, New York, from potential Mexican sicarios (a term used to describe “hitmen”).

As for District Judge Jon S. Tigar’s statements, let’s begin with the notion as reported in the Washington Post, that “Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden” ignores presidential authority that is clearly an concisely laid out in Title 8, United  States Code, Section 1182(f), which reads:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

That section of law has been on the books since the INA was enacted in 1952 and has been successfully invoked by previous administrations including that of Jimmy Carter.  President Trump is not rewriting any law, just attempting to enforce existing law.

Aliens who evade the inspections process are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States.  In an earlier article Aliens Trespassing, I noted that Senator Chuck Schumer had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on national landmarks or critical infrastructure a federal felony that would carry a five year maximum prison sentence.  Here is a quote from Schumer’s official Senate website:

With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.

However, it would appear that while Schumer and his friends in the Democratic Party would put trespassers in jail for up to five years, aliens who trespass on the United States are somehow sacrosanct and, indeed, worthy of U.S. citizenship.

Perhaps in addition to reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge should read another important document, the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel, that was written by members of the 9/11 Commission staff- the federal agents and the attorneys.

The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

It also included these excerpts:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

The judge should read Article IV, Section 4 the Constitution, that states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Finally, The judge should also read my recent article The Threats Posed By The Impending Invasion.

According to his bio, prior to becoming a federal judge, Mr. Tigar was a public defender. If ever there was a time the American public needed defending, this is the time.

RELATED ARTICLE: Tijuana Government Reeling, over 100 Members of Migrant Caravan Arrested on Criminal Charges

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images first appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image by succo on Pixabay.

Clergy and the Caravan

/in , , , , , , /by

I would like to believe that these left-leaning rabbis, ministers, and imams had good intentions, joining together to meet the caravan of migrants and provide them with food, clothing and solace, but their logic is deeply flawed.  Whatever their intent, it is unconscionable and immoral for them to presume that they have the authority to offer the United States of America, home to more than 325.7 million American citizens, to any foreign hordes.  In breaking the law, they are setting themselves above the law, which is something expressly forbidden in Judaism and Christianity.

Some of the rabbis used the Holocaust as false justification for the men’s trek to the north (95% of the lot are men), but theirs is a misplaced spirit of humanitarianism.  They have drawn an unsuitable equivalence between the European Jews who were forced to flee their homes in fear for their lives with the Central Americans who were lured by the promise of welfare.   This sense of social justice is peculiarly selective, inasmuch as the rabbis were silent when “Palestinian” youths were propelling incendiary kites and balloons over Israel for more than a half year, burning thousands of acres of precious land and life; silent during these years of firing rockets and mortars into Israel, killing, crippling, and destroying; silent when Jews are attacked on the streets of Israel, France, Sweden, and Brooklyn; and silent when jihada and anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour, rants her hatred against Jews and President Trump.  Heck, they didn’t even show up to support the establishment of the US Embassy in Jerusalem, yet they managed to arise in support of an invasion into America by unknown, lawless thousands!

The leftist clerics are not entitled to overlook the possibilities that this migration is no different from the present-day Islamic migration (hijra) into Europe, creating havoc with their acts of rape, violence and destruction, bent on conquest by population.  We know that Bartolo Fuentes, former Honduran congressman and one of the marches’ coordinators, established the caravan on March 12, 2017, and the small number grew to thousands as they passed through Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico.  We cannot wait for recognizable uniforms, tanks, bazookas and cannons before calling it a threat.  The firing pin has been pulled, the gun powder ignited, and these are the “bullets,” which, by their sheer number, are meant to be the overpowering human projectiles – and now guided by a misguided clergy.

Mexico was not able to stop these bullets, and her offer of asylum was rebuffed, proving that the marchers are not really seeking sanctuary.  Mexicans agree with our President Trump, that this is an invasion, a “tsunami,” as the intruders continue north, waving their own flags and burning our Stars and Stripes – surely a sign of disrespect and haughty bravado, not humility.

Further, the hordes have shown their ingratitude by rejecting our food offerings, saying the meals are not “fit for pigs.”  Such behavior, which expresses no appreciation or veneration for our country, warrants no compassion.  What it does warrant is our understanding that they are not the “tired, poor, hungry masses.”  They have thus far been well fed, clothed, and tended along their journey by socio-political progressives and the United Nations.  If permitted entry, our shifting population would throw us into economic turmoil, with more taxes imposed on the middle class to pay for the non-working poor.  Once again, this is the redistribution of wealth, the goal of “global justice,” such as fueled by the Occupy movements of 2011, and the heavy taxation and unemployment of the Obama years.

If not for President Trump’s strong support for our military and police forces that had been allowed to deteriorate during the “eight years,” we would now be in the throes of invasion, no borders, no sovereignty, and in rampant chaos.  These clerics may well be of the same academic era that continues to weaken our male students, to intentionally destabilize our country, to have kept them ignorant of our history and what it took to establish these United States.  They may not understand the goals of Progressivism/Communism and Islamism, but naïveté is inexcusable in leadership positions.  If they are even partly responsible for the potential of unbridled disaster to our nation, they will have blood on their hands – and they would also succumb.

This is like no war we have ever fought.  It is global as well as within our nation.  The tactics differ as do the levels of progression and intensity, but the war is a certainty.  How it is allowed to escalate is still up to us.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Kelsey Knight on Unsplash.

Record Numbers of Women in Congress Disprove the Need for Feminist Policies

/in , , , , /by

In January, a record number of women will serve in the U.S. House and Senate. Depending on the outcome of races that are still too close to call, the 116th Congress will have anywhere from 109 to 117 women.

That is three-and-a-half times as many women as were in the 102nd Congress of 1991-1992. And it’s cause for celebration.

But now imagine if all those women were headed to Congress following imposition of a gender quota. Few people would be celebrating women’s successes then. Instead, they would be viewed as “token legislators,” or “Title IX” recipients—incapable of being elected in their own right.

Ostensibly pro-women policies might sound good to those who want to impose certain measurable outcomes—such as equal numbers of women in high-power positions or exact parity between all men’s and all women’s wages—but they could instead backfire on women.

As it is today, male and female legislators are equal. They receive the exact same salaries, they can introduce and co-sponsor as many bills as they want (and historically, women introduce and co-sponsor more legislation than men), and they can hold committee chairs and leadership positions.

And having been elected by a free vote of their constituents—often defeating male candidates—female legislators earn the same respect as men.

If Congress were to pass a gender quota law for legislators, as California did for boardrooms of corporations headquartered there, it would demean female legislators instead of applauding their successes.

Imagine female lawmakers up against a bunch of male colleagues who resent the leg-up the women got into Congress, or being told by constituents at townhall meetings that they don’t deserve their position because they didn’t actually earn it.

That’s what’s happened with the “golden skirt” phenomenon. After Norway and other European countries passed corporate boardroom quotas, women suddenly had a huge advantage over men.

But instead of creating a general boost in the ranks for women, boardroom quotas in Norway led companies to all seek after the same small group of eligible women. One such “golden skirt” sat on the boards of as many as 90 companies at the same time.

Moreover, boardroom quotas in Norway hurt companies’ performances because they led to younger, less experienced, and less capable boards.

And as an Economist article headline declared, “Gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down.”

The same would be true for so-called equal pay laws. Except that while quotas would push women into roles they otherwise wouldn’t hold, equal pay laws would prevent women from holding roles they otherwise could have.

Forcing companies to maintain gender-based equity in pay would require them to impose one-size-fits-all jobs that actually wouldn’t fit many working women’s needs and desires.

Women tend to place more value on nonwage-based job benefits, such as a flexible work schedules, on-site child care, or more generous fringe benefits. But those features wouldn’t show up in employers’ pay records, so they would be unlikely to offer them.

Moreover, equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land.

And when you take into account the measurable choices men and women make regarding things such as their occupation and hours of work, women are essentially on par with men. (Non-measurable factors, such as flexibility, likely account for the small unexplained gap in pay.)

The fact that the number of women in Congress has increased three and a half-fold since 1992 without any legislation addressing the gap shows that women are fully capable, when they choose to, of shattering so-called “glass ceilings” on their own.

Let’s hope that the 116th Congress pursues policies that would create equal opportunities for all women and men alike, instead of ones that would benefit only an elite group of women or that would limit women’s access to jobs that meet their individual needs and desires.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom.

American’t: From Midterms to End Times

/in , , , , /by

Truly great disasters come like a thief in the night. How many foresaw Rome’s sacking in 410 A.D., her collapse 66 years later, WWI or WWII? As for today, how many see that the United States is at what some call a tipping point, what others may call a Fourth Turning? Whatever you call it, the American republic is in its last days. This is too scary for many to contemplate, but there’s something far scarier: playing ostrich and not being prepared for things to come.

The so-called Left, ever violent since its French Revolution birth and as power hungry as ever, wholly controls the culture: the media, mainstream and social; academia; and entertainment. This means it controls long-term politics, since the latter is downstream of culture. So is big business, mind you, which is why the Left controls most of it as well; this, of course, translates into funding.

Trump’s 2016 victory will not MAGA; it was merely a stay of execution, a prolonging of the inevitable. This should have been obvious in a country that could elect Barack Obama and then, like the Titanic having backed up to hit the iceberg again, re-elect him. If it wasn’t, it should be obvious now that the Democrats have seized the House in a Watergate-level rout.

The notion that this was a standard result for a president’s first midterm is only comforting when viewing matters in relative terms; that is, the “‘political spectrum’ always has a right and left side no matter how far ‘left’ that spectrum moves.”

The problem? Civilizational ebbs and flows (and collapses) are governed by absolutes, such as right and wrong; not relative qualities, such as right and left. Thinking otherwise is like supposing your transition from stage-one to stage-four cancer as a 70-year-old is like when you went from a bruised arm to a broken one as a 12-year-old because, well, both involve movement toward diminished states of health.

But this isn’t your grandfather’s Democrat Party. Voters this time empowered socialistic to socialist to closet-communist, sexual devolutionary, rabble-rousing, low-I.Q., no-virtue, ignorant freaks who often encourage political violence by their Antifa-Brownshirt useful idiots. So it’s not your great-grandfather’s America, either.

Digging into the electoral numbers also tells a tale. Ninety percent of blacks, 79 percent of Jews, 77 percent of Asians, 69 percent of Hispanics and 59 percent of women voted Democrat — same as usual. Can we stop now with talk about “Blexit,” the “Walkaway” movement, how “Hispanics are natural conservatives,” how Jews are waking up to the Left’s anti-Semitism and all the other connedservative self-delusion? People vote in accordance with their emotional and philosophical foundations, and “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” as Jonathan Swift put it. Fooling oneself doesn’t help.

The voters are only getting worse, too, for three basic reasons: immigration, indoctrination and moral corruption. Let’s consider the first.

Demography is Destiny

Ever since the nation-rending Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 took effect in ’68, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have been Third Worlders, and 70 to 90 percent of them support Democrats upon naturalization.

This has caused a historic demographic shift (and attendant electoral one) that has seen our nation go from 85-plus percent white in 1965 to only 61 percent non-Hispanic white today. Let’s define further the political impact, using conservative figures.

We absorb approximately 1.3 million legal immigrants annually. If one million ultimately remain and are naturalized and 50 percent vote, and 80 percent of that group breaks Democrat, it means a net plus for Democrats of 300,000 voters every year and three million every decade.

The latter was Hillary Clinton’s purported 2016 popular-vote advantage.

This also translates into 15 million new Democrat voters after half a century, which was as much as Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 popular-vote margins combined. Of course, illegal migration and resultant amnesties would only increase these numbers, but are wholly unnecessary to effect this cultural and electoral annihilation. But not all un-American mentalities are imported.

We Can’t MAGA Unless We MAMA

“The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” the apocryphal saying goes. Today’s brainwashing not just by academia but also media and entertainment is intense. Moreover, we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA — Make America Moral Again. As Ben Franklin put it, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Yet academia, media and, especially, entertainment subject each generation to an ever intensifying demoralization process.

So now let’s crunch some more numbers. Between Trump’s 2016 victory and Election Day 2020, more than 10 million Americans will have died; mostly older, they’re a relatively conservative voting demographic. They will more or less be replaced, however, by approximately 16 million young people who’ll turn 18 during those years. Unlike their elders, though, they’ll disproportionately cast ballots for hardcore statists.

Given this ongoing immigration and indoctrination-enabled electoral-degradation process, is it now clearer why Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential contests?

Note that during our entire pre-2000 history, Republican candidates won the presidency while losing the popular vote only twice. Now it has happened twice since 2000 alone, with the GOP capturing the popular vote in just one of its three victories (G.W. Bush, 2004). How long can we continue losing it while winning the Electoral College? We can’t pull inside straights forever.

Moreover, the cards won’t be there at all once Texas turns blue, and the warning signs are already evident. Rationalize all you want, but leftist nuts Andrew “Cracker State” Gillum, Irish Bob the Phony Mexican (O’Rourke) and Stacey “Suin’ Sore Loser” Abrams came close to winning in, respectively, Florida, Texas (!) and Georgia (!); Taliban bubblehead Kyrsten Sinema did win in Arizona. We’re further down the rabbit hole than you think, Alice.

Leftists are already talking about 2020, too, with a lineup resembling the bar scene in Star Wars (hat tip: Pat Buchanan). But the details don’t matter. Whatever the Democrat presidential ticket, it’ll be a ticket to Hell.

Not only is society drifting ever further from Truth (“leftwards”) for the aforementioned reasons, but consider the Democrats’ delusional perspective. Projecting, many of them have convinced themselves we’re Nazis, fascists, bigots and un-American, evil haters who have undermined the rule of law, created a constitutional crisis and who represent a clear and present danger to the republic — we’re “deplorables.” Believing this, wouldn’t you suppose these were desperate times that called for desperate measures?

When the Democrats seize the presidency and both legislative chambers — which they eventually will — they’ll have a justification for behaving as tyrannically as they fancy we have. They’ll see it as simply responding in kind to a precedent we set. You’ll have Antifa in power.

The more “conservative” Supreme Court won’t save us, either. With their power-lust and ends-justify-the-means mentality, the Left will discover that judicial supremacy isn’t in the Constitution (which it isn’t. Leftists also may just pack the SCOTUS and eliminate “uncooperative” lower courts). Unlike connedservatives, though, they’d actually act upon their epiphany and ignore inconvenient court rulings.

So these are our interesting times. If you’re now ready to split a vein or run for the Zoloft, hold on. There’s some good news here, too — if you want to call it that.

There no longer is an “American people”; there are peoples living in America. We’re balkanized not just racially, ethnically and religiously, but also ideologically, sexually and philosophically; we speak different languages, literally and figuratively. With open talk of open-borders socialism on one side and nationalism on the other, the Overton window is now so wide that each end occupies a different time zone. Frankly, many of us hate each other. If our union were a marriage, we’d have divorced long ago.

And I believe this will likely be the U.S.’s fate: dissolution. It may be precipitated by a calamity such as a severe economic collapse. If the federal government is then unable to meet its obligations (e.g., Social Security payments), the union-binding carrot will be gone. If the feds also seek to impose a tyrannical will, certain states may nullify their dictates, creating a further rift. One thing could then lead to another and….

Regardless, with the Left hurling fightin’ words (Nazi, etc.), fomenting unrest and attacking and bullying conservatives, the Cold Civil War is already afoot. Will it go hot? If so, when? For sure is that if the Left keeps pushing, it eventually will get pushback.

Of course, should this happen, we’d likely be vulnerable to enemies such as China. It all makes for a very unsure, but not uninteresting, future.

Yet if the republic does fall and dissolve, maybe, just perhaps, one of the resulting countries can be that shining city on a hill. But remember: It will be up to us to forge it, ever bearing in mind that we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA. This means instilling in ourselves virtue — including that of courage. For whatever terrors, traumas and tribulations lie ahead, we’ll need a lot of it for things to come.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Matt Botsford on Unsplash.

Understanding Nationalism

/in , , , /by

I find the vilification of nationalism to be appalling. It is being depicted as some sort of Fascist, racist, unpatriotic institution. The reality is, nothing could be further from the truth. It is being characterized as such, because it doesn’t fit in with the progressive/socialist agenda, nor other global developments, such as climate change, immigration, and defense.

President Trump embraced the concept as part of his “America First” initiative, which is one reason why Democrats find it offensive, but it is also being embraced in Europe by the “Brexit” movement in the United Kingdom, Poland, Hungary, Germany, and France. This explains why French President Emmanuel Macron recently made the claim, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” as he views it as a threat to his presidency and the European Union.

As just about anyone who has visited the country can tell you, France is one of the most nationalistic countries in terms of its culture and language. You either fit into their way of thinking or get out. Mr. Macron also suggested the development of a separate army to defend itself against China, Russia, and the United States. This is an insult as America has come to the aid of Europe not just once, but several times over the last 100 years, both militarily and economically.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will not seek re-election following her term of office, also attacked nationalism by warning against “destructive isolationism.” She went on to say, “We know that most of the challenges and threats of today can no longer be solved by one nation alone, but only if we act together.”

I couldn’t agree more, but why is nationalism detrimental to this cause? In reality, it is not. People like Mr. Macron and Mrs. Merkel would have us believe we must all work together in a concerted effort, be it for the environment, immigration, health, and defense. This is all well and good, but what happens when there is a difference of opinion, and a country is asked to implement something in sharp contrast to their beliefs? In the case of “Brexit,” you withdraw from the European Union. In the case of President Trump, you withdraw from the Paris climate control accord, the Iranian peace deal, you move your embassy to Jerusalem over European objections, and you inform your “friends” you will no longer pick up the check for their activities, especially when we get nothing in return.

For many years I taught and consulted in the area of Corporate Culture. All companies, large and small, have a culture, a way of operating based on their values and perspectives. Not all companies think or act alike. In fact, the differences may be very pronounced. Also, within a Corporate Culture there may be a sub-culture, a clique or group of people (such as a department) exhibiting distinctly different characteristics. Such groups may be allowed to operate so long as they do not violate the norms of the overall culture.

Those embracing globalization would have us believe there is one corporate culture. Yes, there may be sub-cultures exhibiting minor differences, but all are expected to conform to the overall culture. This is what Macron and Merkel support. Those embracing nationalism see the world as a group of separate cultures with some similarities allowing them to work cooperatively on mutually beneficial projects. This means each culture is sovereign and is responsible for managing their own affairs. If they do not want to work with another culture, it is their prerogative.

Ideally, companies and countries should work on “Win-Win” projects, where both parties benefit. A good example of this is “NYLON” which was a joint venture based on groups in New York “NY” and London “LON.” If we run into a “Win-Lose” scenario whereby one party benefits at the expense of another, this becomes an unhealthy relationship. Whereas nationalism promotes “Win-Win” situations, globalization allows for “Win-Lose.” And frankly, America is tired of being taken for granted and asked to pay the bill all of the time.

Globalization involves the cultural integration of trade, capital, and immigration among the countries of the world. This tends to force countries to lose their identity and become subservient to others. Again, nationalism respects the sovereignty of a country.

From this perspective, French President Macron is dead wrong; patriotism, which involves the love of country, is promoted by nationalism, not globalization. If anything globalization is a deterrent to patriotism.

There is nothing wrong with forming coalitions for different endeavors, such as the United Nations, NATO, the OAS, the European Union, etc. It is when “Win-Lose” relationships form and one country must dance to the fiddle of another that discord erupts. Think about it; as citizens, does our allegiance rest with the United Nations or the United States? Frankly, I do not understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Nationalism does not prohibit us from coming to the aid of our friends, as we have demonstrated for many years. However, when a friendship is abused and a financial burden added, it is time to ask why.

Nationalism is not the enemy, being asked to relinquish our sovereignty is.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Johnson on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Mississippi Senate Candidate Mike Espy Trailed by Ethical Questions

/in , , , , , /by

Mike Espy, the Democratic candidate in Mississippi’s Nov. 27 Senate runoff election, has been dogged by ethical questions over the course of his political career.

Espy, a former congressman who served as agricultural secretary during former President Bill Clinton’s first term, will face Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in the runoff election after neither candidate secured a majority of the vote in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

Espy has faced scrutiny over his lobbying work for the Ivory Coast under its then-president, Laurent Gbagbo, who is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Espy said in 2011 that he stopped lobbying for Gbagbo’s government less than a month after taking a three-month contract. Espy also claimed at the time to have received only $400,000 of the $750,000 contract and to have forgone the remaining $350,000.

But a report from Fox News on Nov. 15 appears to contradict that claim.

A signed Foreign Agents Registration Act Supplemental Statement that Espy filed with the Department of Justice in June 2011 shows that he worked for Gbagbo’s government for longer than two months and was paid the full $750,000.

Espy’s lobbying for Gbagbo’s government has previously faced accusations of ethical wrongdoing.

(Photo: HERB SWANSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Congressman Mike Espy (2nd-L) accepts his nomination for Secretary of Agriculture 24 December 1992 in Arkansas as U.S. President-elect Bill Clinton (L) listens. (Photo: HERB SWANSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Espy resigned from the Clinton administration in October 1994 while under investigation for allegedly receiving improper gifts.

Espy was indicted on 30 related felony charges in August 1997, but was acquitted on all charges in December 1998 after the jury concluded there wasn’t evidence of a quid-pro-quo or of Espy accepting the gifts with criminal intent.

Espy’s acquittal has been compared to the unsuccessful prosecutions of New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez and former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Although Espy escaped conviction, the Office of Independent Counsel’s (OIC) investigation “revealed a pervasive pattern of improper behavior by Secretary Espy and his top aide, and by persons and companies regulated by or with business before the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),” according to the OIC’s final report.

“The investigation disclosed that, among other offenses, companies with financially important matters pending before USDA gave Secretary Espy – either directly or via members of his family or his girlfriend – numerous gifts in an effort to garner his favor,” the OIC’s January 2001 report states.

Espy’s chief of staff at the USDA, Ronald H. Blackley, was sentenced in March 1998 to 27 months in prison for “lying about $22,000 he received from two Mississippi individuals who obtained large government farming subsidies,” The Washington Post reported at the time.

The Espy campaign did not return a request for comment.

COLUMN BY

PETER HASSON

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

RELATED ARTICLE: MSNBC Host Says Menendez Corruption Case ‘Doesn’t Look Close, It Looks Overwhelming’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

In Saying the ‘American Dream’ Is Alive in China, New York Times Shows Its Misunderstanding of Our Nation

/in , , , /by

Most Americans are innately offended by authoritarian regimes. But not The New York Times—the newspaper of record, once again, has painted a glorified picture of a communist dictatorship.

The latest example is a series of interactive articles that praise and celebrate the rise of China. One piece was actually titled “The American Dream is Alive. In China.”

The series extols China’s growth in wealth over the last few decades—but amid the adulation, something was noticeably missing. The Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti hit the nail on the head.

Continetti also noted that China’s young adults can’t even read about how wonderful they are doing because internet censors in the authoritarian regime block information coming from American sources.

Freedom of speech and access to information are just some of the few cornerstone freedoms that are highly restricted under the Chinese regime.

A dystopian “social credit” system is on the way in China that will monitor everything its subjects do—with rewards for “good” behavior and penalties for “bad” behavior. This opens up a new potential for control over public life that was hardly imaginable in even the most repressive tyrannies of the past.

And China is not just creating this Orwellian system for its own people—it is trying to export it elsewhere.

Of course, “bad” behavior includes any speech or activity seen as critical toward the government. The economic prosperity that the Times article celebrates only comes through the good graces of the regime.

The dream begins and ends with the state.

This exclusion and repression includes entire groups of people whose only crime is having the “wrong” ideas.

BBC reported in October how millions of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province have been placed in massive re-education camps—a modern Gulag Archipelago.

Olivia Enos, an Asian Studies Center research associate within the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation,wrote in July:

Chinese government authorities long have persecuted the more than 11 million Uighurs in the region, collectivizing them, bulldozing their residences, requiring them to submit to invasive DNA and biometric tests, and now forcing them to live with Chinese officials in their homes.

This is hardly something Americans should rush to embrace. Instead, it should lead us to reassess the notion that there was some kind of “end of history” when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The end of the Cold War was certainly a triumph for free people everywhere and clear evidence that capitalism is superior to communism.

However, the fall of the USSR—as great a victory as that was—did not end the recurring conflict between freedom and tyranny, or guarantee the universal embrace of representative government and preservation of God-given rights.

It may have even made us less alert to encroaching despotism.

The New York Times piece missed a key aspect of the American dream: that it is not just about the accumulation of wealth. Our prosperity is the byproduct of a system of order and liberty, provided by the Constitution, which protects the cornerstone freedoms that we hold dear: the freedom of religion, the freedom to associate and protest government and unjust laws, the freedom to protect and defend oneself and one’s community.

Fostering these rights, among many others, are what have made America a beacon of light to the world.

A rich man who must fear practicing religion under threat of imprisonment, who may arbitrarily be placed in a reeducation camp because of his religious or political views, and who does not even have power over the most fundamental decision of bringing life into this world is not a free man—and hardly living the “American dream.”

He is a man living under the very kind of arbitrary government that the Founding Fathers rebelled against, that anti-slavery advocates like Abraham Lincoln worked to end, and what generations of Americans opposed in the 20th century following the rise of fascism and communism.

The unique system that developed in the United States was built around concepts of consent, on the idea that the state is not the bearer of all “truths,” and that we are born free and equal with inalienable rights that must not be infringed.

While America has not always lived up to these ideals, they are worthy and timeless goals that make America not just a great, but a good country.

Our challenge in the 21st century is the same as in previous centuries. We have a choice to make: Do we still hold on to the timeless truths of our founding, or have we lost faith in the ideas that led us to become the most powerful and prosperous country on earth in a historical blink of an eye?

Perhaps many today—including distinguished journalists for The New York Times—forget how some Americans in a previous era looked longingly at authoritarian governments with envy and saw them as a glorious road to the future.

The potential for arbitrary governments to lord power over their citizens presents a far deeper threat to liberty than “fake news,” or the apparent chaos that comes through the freedom of speech and association.

As the playwright Joseph Addison wrote in “Cato: A Tragedy,” one of George Washington’s favorite plays:

A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty

Is worth a whole eternity in bondage.

This is the seed of the American dream, of a people who—despite the material reward of life under British rule—refused to accept the chains of autocracy in exchange for temporary comfort.

As the liberal newspaper of record wistfully depicts a nation that values material prosperity over genuine freedom, Americans would be wise to be cautious.

Instead of glorifying autocracy, we should re-examine the traits that have made us not just powerful and fantastically wealthy, but exceptional—a place where the common man and woman can make their way without violating the dictates of their conscience, without pleading with the state for scraps beneath the table of all-powerful authorities.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times Continues Its Tradition of Whitewashing Communism

ACHTUNG! N.Y. TIMES Had Love Affair With Hitler [and Stalin]

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Stephen Shaver/UPI/Newscom.

UPenn students mark Thanksgiving with talk on ‘racism,’ ‘strained’ US history

/in , , , /by
  • A University of Pennsylvania freshman dorm will host “A Conversation on Racism – Considerations on Thanksgiving and ‘American’ Politics.”
  • The event will be conducted by a UPenn graduate associate who uses “they/them” pronouns and is “invested in anti-racism politics.”
  • A former UPenn graduate associate speculated that the event would be a “fact-free leftist tirade.”

The University of Pennsylvania invited freshmen living in its Stouffer College House to attend a Saturday event discussing the “strained” roots of Thanksgiving.

Stouffer graduate associate Jax Lastinger is organizing “A Conversation on Racism – Considerations on Thanksgiving and ‘American’ Politics,” which will consist of a “facilitated conversation about racism in the week leading to Thanksgiving.”

Graduate Associates at UPenn are much like traditional Resident Advisors, the difference being that GAs are graduate students who are viewed as an asset to residential houses, as they help create a “stimulating living environment.” GAs often organize in-house lectures, activities, debates, and other events in order to bring added perspective and depth of experience to undergraduate residential life.

The event description clarifies that Lastinger “identifies as white and doesn’t position themselves as an expert on this topic,” but is simply “invested in anti-racism politics.”

“Thanksgiving is a holiday that is often framed as a time to be thankful for the bounty we all have. However, the roots of this holiday lay in the strained history of the United States,” the description explains. UPenn invites students to explore how “Native Americans are erased from our culture in the context of Thanksgiving” and learn about “navigating anti-Indigenous racism in the contemporary context.”

UPenn student Christian Bradley called the event’s subject matter “a lot to unpack,” adding that he doesn’t consider himself an expert on Thanksgiving or Native American history when speaking with Campus Reform.

“I do believe Thanksgiving is a great and unique American holiday that everyone of all races, ethnicities, faiths, and backgrounds should be able to enjoy,” Bradley told Campus Reform.

Recent graduate and former UPenn GA Igor Bronz told Campus Reform that he has “several reservations” about the event and its structure. He explained that while part of a GA’s job is to organize events for residents, “these events generally consist of inviting an expert speaker such as a professor to talk about a subject.”

“I have never experienced an event where an RA or GA attempted to facilitate the discussion themselves as the primary subject of the event unless of course, this GA happens to be an expert, which this one claims not to be,” Bronz explained.

“So we have an admitted non-expert, non-historian attempting to talk about history and complex cultural affairs,” he told Campus Reform, pointing out that the event is taking place in a freshman residential house. He noted that Lastinger goes by “they/them” pronouns, using that as further proof of what he suggested would be a biased conversation conducted by someone “attempting to speak to a bunch of impressionable freshmen about a topic they are not an expert in, and there is no professor or expert there to at least steer the conversation in a useful direction.”

“Basically, if I was a GA right now, I would have serious issues about the setup of this event entirely separate from the subject matter,” the former UPenn GA said.

Bronz notes that while he has his own right-wing political biases, he “strove to never create biased events or discussions” during his time as a GA: “I was careful about which speakers I chose to invite (nobody political or someone who is going to push a particular ideology). I would say that most GAs are this way.”

“I could never imagine any one of them trying an event like this. I don’t think it would even get past the dean,” Bronz said.  “Forget the fact that this GA is going to go on a fact-free leftist tirade about what they think racism is. The event simply does not meet the academic requirement of being a useful event.”

Campus Reform reached out to the university for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

COLUMN BY

Celine Ryan

CELINE RYAN

California Senior Campus Correspondent

Celine Ryan is a California Senior Campus Correspondent, and reports on liberal bias and abuse on campus for Campus Reform. Celine is a sophomore at Cuesta College, where she serves as president of Young Americans for Liberty.

RELATED ARTICLES:

College library: Thanksgiving a ‘#NationalDayofMourning’

‘Anti-Thanksgiving’ potluck sparks controversy on UVA campus

CU Boulder pushes Thanksgiving mascot & pipeline ‘talking points,’ ‘conversation guides’

Thanksgiving a ‘celebration’ of ‘genocide,’ say campus groups

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Minds Its Ps and LGBTQs

/in , , , , , /by

Imagine how upset you’d be to find out that your tax dollars were funding radical sexual propaganda targeted at your kids. Well, thanks to Planned Parenthood, you already are. Apparently, the nation’s biggest abortion business isn’t content with destroying innocent lives anymore. Now it wants to undermine your moral values too.

Of course, Americans got a whiff of this back in 2016, when then-president Cecile Richards surprised people by saying, “Planned Parenthood believes that reproductive rights are deeply connected to LGBTQ rights…” In an announcement that raised more than a few eyebrows, because there is no obvious connection, she made it clear that the organization was quickly becoming one-stop shopping for the Left’s social agenda. “[Our] affiliates now provide hormone treatments for transgender people in 26 centers across 10 states.”

Now, the group that enjoys more than a half-billion of your hard-earned tax dollars a year is already wrapping its tentacles around another hot-button topic: the transgender debate. And based on the firestorm in Sarasota, Florida, Planned Parenthood is off to a flying start. Its idea of a sex education video — men groping women and same-sex couples making out — made parents hit the fan.

Despite the backlash in Florida, the group is back at it this week with a special project for “Trans Awareness Week.” In partnership with the LGBT activists at GLAAD, Planned Parenthood has taken it upon themselves to teach people to be less offensive to men who identify as women and vice-versa. The campaign, called “Beyond the Binary,” includes a new vocabulary list that makes the abortion group the newest members of the politically-correct language police.

Among other things, Breitbart points out, the “linguistic guide” scraps the terms “boys and girls” for the more generic “children.” “His” or “her” should be “their” — which is not only ridiculous, but grammatically incorrect. Apparently, science isn’t the only casualty of the Left’s gender-free march. If activists get their way, English will be the next to go. Group salutations like “guys” are supposed to give way to “folks.” “‘Brothers and sisters,’ should simply be ‘siblings,’ while ‘ladies and gentlemen’ should be ‘distinguished guests.'” All of this, Williams goes on, with a backdrop of rainbow birth control. “With its cheery backdrop of multi-colored condoms, one could almost forget that Planned Parenthood’s chief business is killing little children in their mothers’ wombs.”

Although LGBT activism can’t be as lucrative as the group’s biggest moneymaker — abortion — it certainly diversifies their already fanatical portfolio. And with Planned Parenthood’s latest hire, Dr. Sara Flowers, the organization shows no signs of slowing down. Flowers may not be a household name — but she’s about to become a household presence, now that the former director at the Gay Men’s Health Crisis has just been put in charge of Planned Parenthood’s “education” efforts. And, as far as she’s concerned, sex ed is “more than learning about birth control and sexually-transmitted infections. Ideally, sex education should address… gender identity and sexual orientation…” If you think the public-school indoctrination is bad now, just wait. Planned Parenthood has unlimited access to more than 1.5 million kids through sex education. Is yours one of them? Make sure you contact your local district office and find out.

Meanwhile, when the group isn’t busy brainwashing children (or aborting them), it’s spreading plenty of misinformation online. In new videos targeting moms and dads (no doubt also funded by unwilling taxpayers), Planned Parenthood has disturbing answers to questions like “How do I know if my kid is transgender?” Children, they insist without a scrap of science to back it up, can know their gender identity by age three, the group suggests. And, “there’s nothing you as a parent can do to change [it].” Some little kids, the narrator says, “may understand that the gender that everyone says they are is not who they really know they are inside. And that’s the definition of transgender.” If you want to try counseling, the videos urge, talk with someone who’s “supportive of transgender identities.” Forcing them into a gender box, Planned Parenthood warns, will hurt them. That’s hardly the advice of the real experts at the American College of Pediatricians, who insist this kind of guidance is “child abuse.”

After its baby body parts sales, overbilling scandals, sexual abuse cover-ups, gender targeting, unsanitary clinic conditions, botched abortions, falsified medical information, and political campaigns, Planned Parenthood didn’t have a lot of credibility to fall back on. Now, with this stampede into LGBT activism, whatever shred of credibility Planned Parenthood had in claiming to be a “health care provider” should be put to rest. This is all the more reason for Congress to finish the job it started last fall and cut off Planned Parenthood’s funding at the source: the federal government.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Queen: Harris Compares Immigration Workers to KKK

Truth Erased by Hollywood in Film Attacking Counseling Choice

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: D.C. Carry Permits Skyrocket After Recent Move From “May Issue” to “Shall Issue”

/in , , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. concealed carry permits jump over 1440% since District went ‘shall issue.’

NRATV’s Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.

DeSantis Cheers Brenda Snipes’ Resignation, Says Broward County ‘Dropped the Ball’

/in , , , , , /by

Republican Florida Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday to applaud the resignation of Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes and said there was “no way as governor that [he] was going to let her preside over another election.”

“Obviously we’re going to have to address some of the problems with the election administration in places like Broward and Palm Beach County,” DeSantis said.

dcnf-logo

“I think it’s good that Brenda Snipes has submitted her resignation.”

DeSantis claimed he would not have let Snipes continue under his administration and said she “dropped the ball” during the statewide recount.

“There was no way as governor that I was going to let her preside over another election down there after all the problems that they had,” he continued. “So we had 65 counties do a good job. We had two that dropped the ball. We want to make sure all 67 counties do these elections in a fair way.”

Snipes could have faced an “embarrassing suspension from office at the hands of either Gov. Rick Scott or his likely successor, Ron DeSantis,” according to Politico.

Host Ainsley Earhardt asked DeSantis what the next step in the process is and he said either he or outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Scott would appoint her replacement after she officially leaves office.

“It depends on when her resignation is effective. I heard it was going to be effective sometime in early January, about the time I’m being sworn in. So, yeah, then that will fall to me to appoint her replacement. If she has resigned immediately, then Gov. Scott would have a window to appoint it before he leaves office,” DeSantis said.

COLUMN BY

Nick Givas

Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @NGivasDC

RELATED ARTICLES:

School Choice Moms’ Tipped the Governor’s Florida Race: DeSantis owes his win to unexpected support from minority women.

The “Found Ballot” Fraud

Palm Beach County Techs Tell Tales Of “Total Incompetence” In Operating Voting Machines

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Indulgences for Hollywood as Movie Studio Buys Gun Offsets

/in , , , , /by

In 2014, Hollywood movie mogul and fierce NRA critic Harvey Weinstein appeared to acknowledge the movie industry might be able to have a positive impact by reducing its glorification of criminal violence. Weinstein explained,

I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be… I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.

To his credit, Weinstein eventually made good on his promise. Following a widely reported sexual harassment scandal, in 2018 The Weinstein Company declared bankruptcy.

In the meantime, the rest of Hollywood has picked up the slack by continuing to churn out depictions of graphic violence. As Weinstein knew, the glorification of violence sells. So one enterprising film company sought to develop a way to quell their moral pangs while continuing the on-screen carnage.

According to an October 25 press release, startup studio Level Forward (a partnership between gun control activist and Disney heiress Abigail Disney and Killer Content) will now only produce content that is “gun neutral.”

The press release explained,

For each prop gun that appears in a production, financiers and producers will add a “GUN NEUTRAL” budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based arts programs targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged.

As part of the program, Level Forward has pledged the money to destroy 10 guns for every prop gun that appears in one of their productions. And Level Forward does not appear to be toning down the on-screen violence due to budgetary concerns. In its first three Gun Neutral films, 166 prop firearms were used, resulting in a pledge to destroy 1,660 real firearms.

The Gun Neutral concept will remind some of carbon offsets. Carbon offset policy attempts to apply market forces to reduce carbon emissions and can be government mandated or voluntary. In the U.S. in the mid-2000s it became fashionable for elites to purchase carbon offsets to repent for their jet setting high-consumption lifestyles. Critics charged that this hypocritical approach to environmentalism was akin to the medieval practice of buying indulgences for sins.

However, perhaps a comparison to the medieval Catholic Church isn’t fair to the church in this instance.

In order to carry out the Gun Neutral program, Level Forward has partnered with the group One Less Gun. On the One Less Guns website, visitors are told that for a donation of £5 (about $6.50) they too can assure one gun is destroyed. At an average of $15 per prop gun, Level Forward appears to be paying $1.50 per gun purported to be destroyed.

We’re not sure if the Catholic Church ever offered a bulk rate on indulgences.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jamie Lee Curtis Made Sure ‘Halloween’ Only Used Firearms for Self-Defense and Aligned With Her Views on Gun Control

Hollywood hates guns, except in movies like ‘Peppermint’

Gun control advocates turn to Hollywood for messaging help