Our Critically Disappearing National Consensus

David Carlin wonders if there’s anything Americans of all types can agree on. Ceaseless and passionate commercial activity, perhaps? But that’s not enough.


A few weeks ago I wrote on the great divisions troubling American society at the moment and the possibility of a second civil war. The concluding paragraph of that column included this: “I console myself with the thought that the assassinations have not yet begun.” Today, I’d have to say, “I console myself with the thought that the attempted assassinations have not yet been successful.”

For the last week or two, following the bombs in the mail and the mass murder at the Pittsburgh synagogue, the air has been filled with prominent voices, both liberal and conservative, calling for a restoration of national unity.

When former Vice-president Joe Biden, a very prominent liberal, added his voice to those deploring division and calling for unity, I said to myself, “Oh good!  Oh wonderful! This means that liberals like Biden will stop calling me (a cultural conservative) a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe, and a transphobe.”

But, of course, Biden’s call for national unity doesn’t mean any such thing.  It means, “We can have unity in America if only moral dinosaurs like Dave Carlin will get with the program; if only they’ll renounce their hatred and try to get on the right side of history.”

I suppose Biden regards himself as a living example of how liberals and conservatives can be reconciled. “Insofar as I’m a Catholic,” he may say to himself, “I’m a conservative; but insofar as I champion abortion and gay marriage, I’m a liberal.  Why can’t everybody be like me?  Why can’t everybody nominally embrace Catholic values, and really embrace anti-Catholic values?”

Most of those, both left and right, calling for national unity seem to believe that it’s simply a matter of being polite to one another.  If politicians only had a genuine will to unity, unity would ensue.  If only Donald Trump and the Trump-haters (for example, at CNN and MSNBC) were to show more respect for one another, ours would be a happy land.

And – if only – sometime early in 1861, Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis had sat down for a friendly cup of tea (or bourbon), the Civil War could have been avoided.

But our national divisions are far more serious than that, far more profound.  We are in the midst of a clash of worldviews – or at least of nationviews.  What kind of nation is the USA to be?

Will it be a thoroughly secularized nation in which religion and a religion-based morality play little or no role; a nation in which the central government will be a godlike being, empowered to solve all problems?  This is the “progressive” vision; or as it may be called, the vision of a “new America.”

Or will it be a nation in which religion (especially Christianity) plays a major role; a nation in which individuals and families are expected to be self-reliant, and where government does only those things that individuals and private associations either cannot do at all or cannot do so well?  This is the “conservative” vision; or as it may be called, the “old-fashioned America” vision (and Catholic subsidiarity vision).

I can see only two possible ways of restoring an effective national unity.

One way is that one side in the great culture war wins a nearly total victory while the other side suffers a nearly total defeat. This is how we settled an earlier culture war, the one having to do with slavery.

Since another actual civil war, with real armies marching against one another, is unlikely, the side that hopes to win the current culture war will have to win the propaganda battle; which means it will have to become dominant in society’s organs of cultural propaganda – that is, schools, colleges, and universities; the mainstream journalistic media; and the entertainment industry.

Since progressives currently dominate these organs, it is more likely than not that progressives will win the propaganda war, and thus the culture war.  We conservatives will be reduced to the status of defeated Confederates after the Civil War.  While living in the new America, we’ll nurse hopes that the old America will someday “rise again.”

Another possibility is both sides, left and right, will find something really important to agree on that will make our cultural differences seem to be relatively unimportant.  Religion used to serve this function.  While the USA never had a formal state religion, for a long time we had an informal national religion: Protestantism.

It was not the Protestantism of any particular sect or denomination, but Protestantism in general. But when this would no longer do, since many Catholics and Jews had come to America, our national religion became what we called our “Judeo-Christian heritage.”

But with the rise of atheism and agnosticism, this too would no longer do. So we turned to a moral consensus, but this quickly broke down, since we could not agree either on sex-related matters (e.g., abortion, homosexuality) or on a general theory of morality.

So is there any really important thing that all Americans – Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, meat-eaters, vegetarians, dog-lovers, cat-lovers, sadomasochists, etc. – can agree on?

The only thing I can think of is ceaseless and passionate commercial activity; that is, a mad frenzy of making money and spending it.  The kind of thing that Wordsworth, as though anticipating our present-day problems, wrote about in his sonnet, “The world is too much with us.”  Drunk with “getting and spending,” we will think of America, not as a fatherland, but as nothing more (or less) than a tremendous commercial association.

Except for a few of us, nobody will any longer care about the ideas and values that are currently exciting progressives and conservatives.  The USA will be spiritually shallow, and minimally unified, unless – as also seems likely – commercial association also proves too weak a basis to hold a nation together.

Then what? Who can say? But it won’t be pretty.

David Carlin

David Carlin

David Carlin is professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured image is titled  “Instruments of Power” (from the America Today series by Thomas Hart Benton, 1931 [The Met, New York]. The painting shown is one of ten painted by Benton for the boardroom of NYC’s New School for Social Research.

Here’s Why Trump’s Constant Criticism of the Media Resonates With Americans

Americans aren’t fans of their media.

A recent poll shows that while many Americans find President Donald Trump divisive, even more find the media to be divisive.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has done more to divide the country, while 64 percent of Americans think the media has done more.

Only 17 percent of respondents said that they thought the national media has done more to unite the country.

There were sharp partisan divisions over whether Trump has worked to unite or divide the country, but Americans across the political spectrum gave the media low marks.

Reinforcing this poll about the media is another survey by Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog, that says media coverage of Trump and Republicans has been overwhelmingly negative and partisan.

The study found that 92 percent of the broadcast network coverage of Trump was negative, compared to only 8 percent being positive.

While much of the division in America may be natural and intractable, it is telling that the media, which has been so strongly negative toward the president, is being blamed even more for heightening conflict in this country.

If anything, the polls show that the media needs to examine themselves before labeling Trump as the cause of a climate of hate in this country. Perhaps there is much blame to go around, but it’s clear that the media has been a driver of this toxic environment.

There’s perhaps no better example of this than recent comments by CNN anchor Don Lemon to CNN host Chris Cuomo on Monday.

“We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right,” Lemon said, breathlessly. “We have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no white guy ban. So what do we do about that?”

It’s no wonder that polls show eroding confidence in the media as a whole. Some of the biggest personalities in news have revealed themselves as hopelessly partisan and vindictive toward wide swaths of ordinary Americans.

The people have noticed, and their faith in the fourth estate is waning.

As Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner wrote, this perhaps explains why Trump’s attacks on the media have been so effective. Trump’s rhetoric, Klein wrote, “not only works as a way of firing up the base, but it doesn’t really cost him much among the general public, which is sympathetic to the idea that journalists play a large role in dividing the country.”

Lack of trust in media predates the Trump administration, but as I wrote in October, it’s worse now. Polls show that Americans think the media intentionally publishes fake or misleading newsparticularly about Trump.

During the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, in which allegations of sexual assault were lobbed at the now-Supreme Court justice, the media was in rare form, publishing numerous, poorly sourced stories that seemed timed for maximum damage.

Then, as soon as the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh, the media stopped pursuing the story altogether, suggesting that it was part of an agenda rather than the pursuit of the truth.

So, despite the fact that there are still excellent journalists at the local and even national level—and despite the genuine need for a serious press to keep people in power honest—many Americans are outright hostile to what the media has become. And this lack of faith in the media will not be repaired by a media establishment that sees itself as the resistance to Trump and the sole bearer of the truth.

Perhaps the solution is to get back to listening to the American people, and to accept that some of Trump and others’ criticism of the media rings true for large swaths of the population.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of 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: .


Trump Announces Step to Stop ‘Meritless’ Asylum Claims at Border

President Donald Trump said Thursday he is working on an executive order to deny automatic entry to the U.S. to illegal immigrants claiming asylum unless they go to a legal port of entry.

“My administration is finalizing a plan to end the rampant abuse of our asylum system, to halt the dangerous influx, and to establish this control over America’s sovereign borders,” Trump said.

“Under this plan, the illegal aliens will no longer get a free pass into our country by lodging meritless claims in seeking asylum,” he said. “Instead, migrants seeking asylum will have to present themselves lawfully at a port of entry.”

Trump said he will be releasing a “quite comprehensive” executive order next week.

“Those who choose to break our laws and enter illegally will no longer be able to use meritless claims to gain automatic admission into our country,” the president said. “We will hold them—for a long time, if necessary. The only long-term solution to the crisis, and the only way to ensure the endurance of our nation as a sovereign country, is for Congress to overcome open-borders obstruction.”

Currently, illegal immigrants who illegally cross the border can claim asylum, and the United States is legally obligated to grant them a hearing.

However, a single asylum case can take as long as three years to hear. Trump and other federal officials have said that illegal immigrants frequently don’t show up for those hearings, since they are already in the interior of the country.

“We will end catch and release. We are not releasing any longer,” he said.

Trump also spoke of the Central American caravan of migrants in Mexico making its way toward the United States’ southern border. At one point, the caravan reportedly numbered 10,000, but the crowd is said to have declined since then to fewer than 4,000.

“These illegal caravans will not be allowed into the United States, and they should turn back now, because they’re wasting their time,” the president said. “They should apply to come into our country. We want them to come legally into our country.”

Trump called the caravan an “invasion” that has already “overrun” the Mexican border, carrying out violent acts against Mexican police and soldiers. He has deployed 7,000 active-duty military personnel to assist Customs and Border Protection officials and has threatened to double that number.

He said the caravan was involved in a “break-in” to Mexico, one in which its police and military were attacked.

“Anybody throwing stones or rocks, like they did to the Mexican military and the Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm, because there’s not much difference,” Trump said.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Announces a ‘Comprehensive’ Executive Order on Immigration Is Coming Next Week


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Free-Photos on Pixabay.

School Police Show Up At Door Of Transgender Policy Critic

A parent who sent an email critical of the Florida school superintendent who implemented a radical transgender policy that strips away parent rights, found officers from the school district’s brand new police force at his door the next day.

This is a fairly shocking level of intimidation, and certainly at least some parents must have got the message: Shut up, sit down and let us handle your children. Or else we may come knocking.

We wrote about this radical policy last week, but confess we did not see this tactic coming. The essentials are this:

At the recommendation of the Sarasota County School District’s LGBTQI Task Force, School Superintendent Todd Bowden issued “guidelines” to govern how the district’s more than 50 public schools handle transgender and gender questioning students — starting as young as kindergarten. This stealthy radicalization of local policy comes just as the Trump administration considers rolling back the Obama administration’s un-scientific and lawless expansion of Title IX.

The Sarasota County school guidelines implement a full-blown transgender protocol allowing students to use whichever bathroom and locker room corresponds with the gender with which they “identify;” and forces everyone else to use the pronoun of the students’ choice. But maybe the biggest affront is that the guidelines also say that parents can not be informed of their child’s decision to identify as a different gender, because some trans activists claim the schools are a “safer” environment than the home.

It was keeping it secret from the parents, along with the general egregiousness of the rest of the policy, that attracted a lot of controversy. A 31-year-old Sarasota father of a young child not yet in the school system, sent the superintendent a brief email criticizing the guidelines.

“If Sarasota County schools will not keep my daughter safe from mentally ill male students who want to use the same bathroom as my daughter then I will. Listen very clearly, if/when something happens to little girls at school by transgender males exposing themselves in bathrooms/locker rooms or worse, you will be held liable. See you around.”

The superintendent decided that being “held liable” or maybe “see you around” was a physical threat and went to the school police about it. Of course, the letter-writer is right. The superintendent is totally liable, or responsible, because he bypassed both the School Board and the public in making the decision. That level of authoritarian action would seem to expose him to legal liability, which is the obvious point the father was making.

The twist is that the school district is still in the process of building its brand new internal police force — one of very few in Florida — in the wake of the Parkland shootings last year and hasty Florida legislation passed under the pressure of emotional activism. That means this particular superintendent, with his apparent tendencies, now has a quasi-personal police force. No one wants to think he would possibly use it in such a way, but it is not out of line with his heavy-handed tactics.

So while the letter-writing father was at work, his wife called him to say that two school district police officers showed up at their house. It’s not clear, but apparently the officers do not even have any jurisdiction off school property. They said they were there about the email.

That’s a scary situation for anyone, and certainly a parent. To their professional credit, once the father showed them the email, they realized there was nothing to it and apologized for being there. However, it turns out that school police were also at the letter writer’s father’s house, questioning him and his neighbors.

Of course nothing came of it because there was nothing there in the first place — nothing to it except to display a classic intimidation move from a Superintendent that has a bit of a reputation for playing hardball and intimidating others — including school board members who he supposedly answers to.

It’s safe to say that the message has been received by other parents who are uncomfortable with boys being allowed in the bathroom and locker room with their daughters at school, and are very uncomfortable with their Johnny being Sue at school and the school keeping that information from them and accommodating Johnny as Sue.

The message? Keep your mouth shut.

UPDATE BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Team Beto Assists Caravan Aliens

UPDATE:

Last night I sent our new video [below] exposing Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s senate campaign for a potentially illegal application of campaign funds.  Our video subjects confirmed that these campaign funds were allegedly used to aide early members of the Honduran caravan.  In case you missed it you can view the video HERE.

Our video, which received nearly 2 million views in 24 hours, was so shocking that Beto was forced to respond.

Here’s what he said:

Beto ignores that his own campaign staffers are admitting to breaking federal election laws.

Today, his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, has encouraged other journalists and the mainstream media to push Congressman O’Rourke to own up to the actions and words of his staff.

We’ll continue to ask questions of the Congressman and keep the pressure on double-talking politicians like Beto.

Stay tuned for tonight’s investigation where we’ll release video with familiar faces in a very tight election.

In Veritas,

James O’Keefe


Texas: Project Veritas Action Fund has released new undercover video from the campaign of current Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate, Beto O’Rourke.

This new investigation uncovers what appears to be illegal activity on Congressman O’Rourke’s campaign showing campaign workers misusing funds to purchase items for Honduran aliens and early arrivals of the migrant caravan.

According to campaign workers, these expenditures have been improperly and illegally reported as other expenses.

  • Campaign workers appear to illegally misuse expenditures to assist Honduran aliens: “Nobody needs to know.”
  • Campaign staff are using “pre-paid credit cards” . . . it’s “some sort of a violation”.
  • Campaign worker wants more campaign resources to assist Honduran caravan aliens: “I’m done being nice. I’m done being professional. [Be]cause nothing is professional. None of this is like s**t there is a rule book for, you know?”
  • O’Rourke workers play fast and loose with the law: “For me, I can just ignore the rules and I’m like f**k it.”

View the full video HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why did nobody mention that Beto O’Rourke’s wife is a billionaire heiress? | Spectator USA

New York Democrat to Schumer: ‘Today’s Democratic Party does not deserve our support’

VIDEO: After Project Veritas’ Gillum Campaign Expose the #CrackerLivesMatter movement is launched

President Trump in Fort Myers, Florida on October 31, 2018 with #CrackerLivesMatter members.

Check out Tom Trento and Gold Star father Billy Vaughn responding to the investigative expose’ that caught socialist Andrew Gillum’s key team members spewing hate, racism and complete disgust for white “crackers” in Florida. Yes, this is unbelievable but TRUE.

With a bit of humor, Tom and Billy make a VERY serious point about the cultural destruction a Gillum Administration would bring about if “crazy” Socialist Gillum gets elected Governor.

#CrackerLivesMatter is a hashtag to expose the hate-filled rhetoric surrounding the Andrew Gillum for Governor campaign in Florida.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Gillum and the Mystery of 311 East Jennings Street

‘Grab Them By The Ballot’: Women Pose Nude Urging People To Vote For Democrats

‘Nobody Needs To Know’: O’Rourke Campaign Appears To Illegally Support Caravan Migrants, Report Suggests

Target Case Could Sink Bathroom Law [+Video]

People like Massachusetts State Rep. Paul Tucker (D) want you to think no one gets hurt when states open bathrooms to everyone. But he’ll have a tougher time arguing that now with an incident right in Boston’s backyard.

In five days, voters in the Bay State will decide if they want to keep putting women and children at risk — or roll back a 2016 law that gives sexual predators easier access to their kids. An incident in Woburn might have just helped people make up their minds. Like every other Target store, Woburn’s lets men into girls’ restrooms. And that’s exactly what one 10-year-old found when a grown man, who identifies as a woman, followed her in. He offered her candy, and, according to her parents, banged on her stall.

Someone called the police, which Chief Robert Ferullo confirmed in a statement to a local newspaper. “On October 16 we responded to a call of suspicious activity at the Woburn Target. We identified and spoke with all involved parties. An investigation was initiated.” Ferullo said later that he couldn’t comment on that investigation, but he didn’t need to. To anyone wondering how they should vote on Question 3, this news report says it all.

Speaker Robert DeLeo (D) insisted that conservatives were making up stories like this one. “Opponents to this common-sense protection routinely and falsely claim that the law could be abused by criminals seeking to harm women and children in public restrooms. The facts simply don’t support this fiction.” Apparently, he doesn’t shop at Target! Others, like State Rep. Carmine Gentile (D) flat-out deny it, telling voters, “This law has been in place for two years, with no increase in safety incidents in restrooms.” The threats associated with Massachusetts’s law aren’t something conservatives invented (unlike the Left’s latest definition of gender). There are very real patterns (here) of voyeurism, harassment, and abuse that result from open-door policies like this one.

“… [T]his law is bad,” Andrew Beckwith of the Massachusetts Family Institute insists. “What we’ve been saying for months now — years, really — is this law allows men to go in women’s spaces and prevents anyone from stopping them, including the police. This law handcuffs police until somebody is actually violated.” How many more 10-year-olds are people like DeLeo willing to sacrifice on this phony altar of tolerance? Even one is too many.

A Massachusetts pastor, Bishop James Collins of Eagle Heights Cathedral in Revere, decided to preach the truth about Question 3. In a powerful video he talks about what he told his congregation — and that is, “there are just some things you have to stand up for — because our job is to look out for the whole and to look out for our communities.” As a father and a husband, he says, his first concern is “the protection of my wife and daughters.” As a pastor, it’s being salt and light. “Even if nothing had ever happened, it can happen. And so let’s not wait until something happens… to act.”

If you’re in Massachusetts, vote to keep women and children safe! Vote NO on Question 3. For more information on how to protect safety and privacy, check out the website.


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


RELATED ARTICLE: Libs Take a Step in the Right Deception

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

Libs Take a Step in the Right Deception

Not everyone is waiting until next Tuesday to have their say in the midterm elections. As of yesterday, a whopping 24 million votes had already been cast — blowing past the early voting total from 2014 (21 million). If there’s one thing both sides have going for them, it’s enthusiasm. With people flooding polling places, the long lines can only mean one thing: turnout will win the day.

It’s a wave all right — but the color is red, white, and blue. The numbers are so staggering that some pollsters think the country might crack 50 percent turnout — a level we haven’t reached in almost 50 years. Believe it or not, some states have more than doubled the votes people cast at this point in 2014 — and others have just flat-out surpassed early turnout for the entire election.

And here’s an interesting nugget. At this point in 2016, 43 percent of early voters were Democrats and 40 percent were Republicans. But Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans held the House and Senate. As of Wednesday, NBC reports, 43 percent of early voters are Republicans and 41 percent are Democrats. Read into that what you will, but despite what Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says, the House is obviously still very much up for grabs.

That’s exactly what the other side is afraid of. For all of their big talk that Congress is in the bag, they have to be very worried by the GOP’s new enthusiasm. With President Trump on more than a state-a-day pace to rally voters, conservatives are revved up. They’re disgusted by what they’ve seen across the country these last few months – not just the profound lack of decency, but the brute power angry liberals are using to get their way. It reminds them of the government power Barack Obama used against people of faith at work, school, and in public life. And they’re determined not to go back.

Make no mistake: Republicans still have their work cut out for them. As we saw in the Brett Kavanaugh debate, some liberals will do whatever they can to take control of Congress and force their agenda on the nation. And that includes outright deception! In Texas, conservatives were astonished at how low some people will stoop to dupe voters. Supporters of Democrat Beto O’Rourke, Senator Ted Cruz’s (R) challenger, actually printed fake voter guides and swapped them out for the Vision America version that was distributed in churches across Texas. “They kept our logo, our look, our colors, but they flipped the issues of the candidates,” Vision America President John Graves said. “The fake voter guides clearly favored O’Rourke. They made Ted Cruz look like he was pro-abortion.”

“I’ve been around this type of work for 20 years,” Graves shook his head, “and I’ve never seen anyone go to this level of deceit and dishonesty to try to deceive Christians.” He told our listeners on “Washington Watch” that Vision America didn’t know anything was amiss until they started fielding calls from churches who couldn’t believe what they were reading. “They left the scriptures on… [but] they switched the positions of the candidates.” But, he points out, “What was more shocking about it was that they didn’t just send out deceit in campaign mailings… They literally altered them, walked inside the house of God, inside the church, and co-mingled them on the tables where people could get them.” And if a party can’t win honestly, what makes anyone think they’ll govern honestly?

Another group that knows an awful lot about defrauding Americans is sinking an awful lot of money into the elections. With Donald Trump in the White House and pro-lifers in control of Congress, Planned Parenthood knows the days of abortion-on-demand could be numbered. So this year, the group is betting the farm on the midterms with a combined $50 million push to stop Republicans from protecting unborn lives.

In a new report from Live Action, Lila Rose’s group tallies the monster donations to radical candidates, pointing out that between Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federal PAC and their joint efforts, America’s biggest abortion business will spend more than it ever has to send pro-abortion politicians to state and federal offices. Of course, it’s illegal to spend taxpayer dollars on campaigns, but the governments’ half-billion investment in Planned Parenthood doesn’t exactly hurt the effort either.

It’s a vicious cycle. The government scratches Planned Parenthood’s back, then Planned Parenthood turns around and uses that money to elect people who will keep their funding stream intact. The “$500 million in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood for nominal health services frees up donors to give to Planned Parenthood’s political arms rather than to health services,” Live Action explains.

Imagine if the organization had to operate like the nonprofit it supposedly is. Without taxpayers, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t have the luxury of diverting money to politics. They’d be forced to use their donations for actual services — like everyone else. Instead, they’re weaponizing the taxpayers’ own money against them. If you’re as tired of that as the rest of America, get out and show it! Elect men and women next Tuesday who’ll end our forced partnership with Planned Parenthood. To find out who that is, check out the FRC Action Voter Guide.


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


RELATED ARTICLE: Target Case Could Sink Bathroom Law

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

Sanctuary Country – Immigration Failures by Design

The idea of writing about how America has become a “Sanctuary Country” came to me less than two months before demonstrators and, incredibly, leaders of the Democratic Party began demanding that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be completely disbanded and terminate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

My consternation led me to think back to a Congressional hearing at which I participated in 2005 and at which Rep. John Hostettler, then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, expressed frustration over how the very structure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the inclusion of a divided immigration law enforcement program had come to be created, hobbling border security and immigration law enforcement. Rep. Hostettler warned that immigration enforcement must not take a “back seat to customs or agriculture” and that it should be shielded from political pressures. He observed that the structure of DHS itself violated the Homeland Security Act which was enacted in 2002 roughly one year after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). This was the enabling legislation that created the DHS, which was supposed to address the myriad vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists had exploited, enabling them to enter the United States and carry out their deadly attacks.

Let’s not forget that the “C” in ICE stands for “Customs,” an area of law that has nothing to do with immigration. In fact, before the creation of the DHS the U.S. Customs Service operated under the auspices of the Treasury Department while the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was an element of the Justice Department.

As we consider the extreme politicization of immigration law enforcement, consider these opening remarks by Chairman Hostettler from that hearing well over a decade ago:

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the U.S. with-out weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting, and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

Since the 9/11 attacks and the Congressional hearings to address the core issues involved, the U.S. has been victimized by a multitude of failures of the immigration system. There is a clear pattern of utter unwillingness by political leaders from both parties to address those failures with meaningful efforts and/or resources.

So-called “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” refuse to cooperate with ICE agents to seek the removal (deportation) of any illegal aliens, including aliens who have been convicted of violent felonies. Those cities should actually be referred to as “Magnet Cities” because they attract illegal aliens, among whom are international terrorists and their supporters, members of extremely vicious transnational gangs, and international fugitives from justice, as well as aliens who are likely to displace American and lawful immigrant workers.

However, the most effective way to block the vital work of ICE is to make certain that there is an abject lack of personnel to carry out their vital missions. The federal government has, in point of fact, been guilty of this crime. There are roughly 6,000 ICE agents nationwide, half of whom are not even doing immigration law enforcement-related work. To provide some comparisons, the Border Patrol has about 20,000 agents, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has roughly 45,000 employees, and the New York City Police Department has roughly 37,000 officers, while the U.S. military has more than one million enlisted men and women serving in all five branches.

The very structure of DHS and the immigration law enforcement elements of ICE obstruct rather than facilitate the enforcement of our immigration laws. This has been known to those in Congress concerned with immigration-related problems for a long time. For example, at a hearing on “Funding for Immigration in the President’s 2005 Budget” before the House Immigration Subcommittee on March 11, 2004, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) lamented the lack of ICE agents to combat the hiring of illegal aliens — the “magnet” responsible for drawing many of them to the U.S.

Rep. Smith’s statement below at the hearing on immigration enforcement funding illustrates how long these issues have persisted and how both political parties bear responsibility for the crisis that continues to this day. Here is Rep. Smith’s statement:

Mr.SMITH OF TEXAS.Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once again for holding an interesting and timely and critical hearing on such an important subject matter. I want to make some observations and then I have a couple of questions for some of our witnesses here today.

First of all, I am glad to see in the Administration’s budget an increase in the money that’s going to be spent on the worksite inspections. I notice, though, in some figures that we have been given in a memo to all Members of the Subcommittee that the number of companies fined for hiring illegal workers has plummeted from over 1,000 in 1992 to 13 in 2002. That means it was almost non-existent.

And while it’s a step in the right direction that we’re increasing the amount of money—as I recall, it was something like from $20 million to $40 million, roughly—for worksite inspections, that’s a little bit like having two candles instead of one candle in a blackout. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not doing near what we should.

The gentleman from Iowa just made an excellent point a while ago, which is basically if we’re not willing to enforce employer sanctions, we’re not really willing to reduce the attraction of the largest magnet that is attracting the individuals to this country, that is jobs. So I hope that this is the beginning of an Administration willing to go into the right direction.

But what concerns me, I think, is the mixed signals that is coming from the Administration. We had this small increase in a very large budget in one area. Meanwhile, as I understand it, we are not increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. And meanwhile, going back to my assertion of mixed signals, we are approving matricular cards which are only going to be helpful to illegal immigrants and help them stay in the country longer. We’re not doing anything to discourage States from offering drivers’ licenses. We continue to give Federal benefits to many people in the country who are here illegally.

In other words, we make it very, very easy in many, many ways for individuals to stay here who are here illegally. That is not the right signal to send if we are, in fact, serious about reducing illegal immigration in America.

To the question that we hear asked so frequently, well, we have ten million people in the country illegally. What are we going to do, deport them all? No. There’s an alternative to that and there’s an alternative to gradual amnesty or immediate amnesty, depending on who is proposing it, and that is enforcing immigration laws. And if we enforced immigration laws alone, that would discourage many people from coming and would discourage those who are here from staying.

All that would lead to a reduction in the number of people who are in the country illegally, which, by the way, is far more than ten million. Ten million refers to the number of people who are here permanently. If you today took a head count of the number of people in the country illegally, it would probably be closer to 20 million because there’s a lot of people who are here only for a month or two or three.

That’s how serious the problem is, and if the Administration were serious, we wouldn’t be sending these mixed signals, in my judgment.

Another mixed signal, by the way, is that I just had a staff counsel return from a trip to the border where she was informed by various agents that in New Mexico and Arizona, a person coming across the border illegally had to actually be apprehended between ten and 15 times before they were actually arrested and officially deported. When you’re coming into the country or want to come into the country illegally and you figure your chances, that you have 15 free chances, that’s an open invitation in bright red lights to come to America, keep trying to come to America. And, of course, we know once you get across the border and if you don’t commit a serious crime, you’re basically home free. So we shouldn’t be surprised that both the illegal immigrant traffic is increasing and we shouldn’t be surprised that so many people want to stay here. We’re making it very easy for them to stay here.

By the way, I don’t know who to ask, Mr. Dougherty or Mr. Stodder. On the Texas border, how many times do you have to be apprehended before you’re actually a part of the deportation process, do you know?

Indeed, failures of the immigration system under-mine national security, public safety, public health, and the jobs and wages of American workers and create great stresses on the critical infrastructure of towns and cities across the U.S. Failures of the immigration system violate the findings and recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that was, we must remember, convened to make certain that future such attacks would be prevented.

Early on, as a new INS employee, I came to the worrying conclusion that the INS was an agency that refused to take itself seriously when, in point of fact, the mission of the INS should actually be thought of as an extension of the common mission of all five branches of the U.S. military. Simply stated, that common mission for our armed forces is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible. During World War II German saboteurs attempted to enter the U.S. surreptitiously on U-Boats. Today’s terrorists are not coming to America on U-Boats but on airliners or by crossing our nation’s borders and entering without inspection. This puts this deadly threat firmly in the realm of immigration law enforcement.

Politicians and the mainstream media frequently claim that the immigration system is broken. To bolster this claim they point to the millions of illegal aliens who live throughout the U.S. Estimates as to the true size of the illegal alien population vary, but commonly the media report that there are about 11 million illegal aliens present. That number has been constant for the past decade in spite of the massive flood of illegal aliens flowing across the U.S./Mexican border, including so-called “Unaccompanied Minors” and the fact that a series of GAO and other reports state that more than a half-million aliens who were lawfully admitted each year violate the terms of their admission. In point of fact, it is likely that the U.S. has more than 30 million illegal aliens.

For millions of aliens to embark on the dangerous and financially costly journey to the southwest border of the U.S., covertly without inspection, or enter through ports of entry with the intention of violating their terms of admission, is a measure of the abject failure of our government to deter such illegal conduct.

I would argue that this failure to deter the entry of all of these aliens in violation of our laws is willful on the part of political leaders from both major political parties and demonstrates, that for all intents and purposes, the lack of resources and commitment to effective and meaningful immigration law enforcement has already turned our entire country into a virtual “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.

The supposed “solution” proffered by the politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties has been to provide lawful status to millions of illegal aliens. They repeat, “We cannot arrest them all.” This actually incentivizes still more aliens from all over the world to enter America.

There is no other area of law enforcement where politicians are so eager to readily admit defeat and offer to provide a massive amnesty. There are certainly more motorists who have cell phones than there are illegal aliens, and certainly more motorists who drive drunk than there are illegal aliens. Yet no politician or chief of police has ever said that because there are so many motorists who text or are under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving, that we simply can’t do anything about it.

Indeed, when there are massive violations of laws, the traditional response is to increase penalties for those who violate the laws, and to ramp up resources dedicated to finding and arresting the law violators. The authorities use every means possible to alert the public that such violations will not only not be tolerated, but will result in serious consequences for law violators who are caught. After thirty years in immigration law enforcement, I have come to the disquieting conclusion that the failures of the immigration system are actually “failures by design.” To the globalists, open borders are a beautiful thing. To greedy employers and a long list of others, the ability to exploit cheap labor is their “meal ticket” to a lavish dinner with all of the trimmings.

In order to truly understand what we are witnessing, you need to change your vantage point.

Forget that you are an American citizen or lawful immigrant who scrupulously abides by our laws. Consider the massive flood of foreigners pouring into our country from the perspective of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or executives of the hotel, hospitality, or travel industries. Consider the situation from the perspective of manufacturing executives. Consider that human tsunami from the perspective of immigration lawyers, and suddenly a new and clear image emerges.

Instead of thinking of the immigration system as a law enforcement system, think of it as a delivery system, a system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap, exploitable labor. Think of it as a delivery system that delivers a huge number of foreign students who can then qualify to gain practical training in the U.S. by working for American companies. Think of it as a delivery system that provides an unlimited stream of foreign tourists, and finally, think of the immigration system as a delivery system that delivers an unlimited supply of clients for immigration attorneys.

From these perspectives, the immigration system is hardly a failure, but is, in fact, the most effective and efficient delivery system this side of Fed-Ex and UPS combined. That delivery system is well paid for. It is paid for by the campaign contributions of every industry and special interest group that sees profit in undermining the integrity of the immigration system.

To the greedy, the lives lost to criminal aliens, gangs, and terrorists are, as the father of a young man who was slaughtered during the terror attacks of 9/11 testified, simply “the cost of doing business.”

Military leaders go to great pains to minimize civilian casualties in war zones, euphemistically referred to as “collateral damage.” Engineers and scientists have devised “smart weapons” to save non-combatant lives, overseas. Inside the U.S., however, the thousands of innocent victims killed or injured by illegal aliens, including transnational gang members or international terrorists, are nothing more than collateral damage to the beneficiaries of the immigration system.

To greedy employers, the destruction of middle class wages, through the importation of cheap and exploitable workers, is not a problem but a goal.

Furthermore, offering illegal aliens lawful status accomplishes a number of other goals that are certainly not in the best interests of the American public. It acts as the “starter pistol” for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world, convincing them that our government lacks the resources or the will to search for them once they get past the U.S. borders. Additionally, it offers the promise that at some point they will not only not be arrested and deported after making the dangerous, arduous, and costly journey, but they are likely to be rewarded for successfully running the U.S. borders by our very own government.

Finally, if another massive legalization program is created, it will cause a veritable stampede of illegal aliens, quickly filling the waiting rooms of immigration law offices from coast to coast.

Immigration lawyers, particularly immigration lawyers who are members of Congress, from both parties, certainly want to get those illegal aliens “out of the shadows” and into the law offices of their colleagues or, perhaps, into their own law offices when they leave Congress, as some are doing at the end of this year.

Let’s not forget that the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” legislation first introduced ten years ago would have paid legal fees for the illegal aliens. This was not out of any sort of compassion for illegal aliens but was a taxpayer-funded subsidy for immigration attorneys who hate to work for free (think “billable hours”!).

This outrageous feature of that stalled legislation the “Bi-Partisan Gang of Eight” nearly foisted on us was legislation that I came to refer to as the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act.” It would have required the beleaguered and overwhelmed adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to process the applications of unknown millions of illegal aliens without the capacity to interview them or request outside field investigations. This would have created an open invitation to massive levels of immigration fraud — a threat not just to the integrity of the immigration system but to national security as well.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, it became abundantly clear that at the root cause of those deadly and savage attacks, staged by international terrorists, were multiple failures of the immigration system.

The Homeland Security Act, which was enacted by the Bush administration in 2002, roughly one year after the 9/11 terror attacks, was the enabling legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the myriad vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists had exploited, which enabled them to carry out their deadly attacks. As has become clear over the years, in creating the DHS, immigration law enforcement was not enhanced but hobbled when it was moved from the Justice Department to the DHS and sliced into multiple agencies and combined with other law enforcement entities.

On May 5, 2005, I testified before a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, chaired by Republican Congressman John Hostettler. The topic of the hearing was new “Dual Missions” of the Immigration Enforcement Agencies.

Chairman Hostettler’s opening statement is essential reading. Remember, he was a Republican and courageously speaking out clearly and unequivocally against the actions of a Republican president to interfere with immigration law enforcement, even as the attacks of 9/11 continued to reverberate around the world, around our nation, and certainly within the hearts and souls of all Americans. Here are Rep. Hostettler’s heartfelt remarks:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these “immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act [HSA], enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a “Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two: what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement….

While I am grateful for the service and good work of the heads of our immigration agencies — some of whom are leaving presently for other experiences in Government — I would urge the Administration in the future to place the leadership of the immigration agencies in the hands of those experienced in immigration matters.

Because the DHS was not created capriciously or arbitrarily, it must be concluded that it was done with considerable forethought. I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks had the actual effect of undermining the enforcement of our nation’s immigration law enforcement system.

What I had to say at that hearing back on May 5, 2005, is as relevant today as it was back then. In my prepared testimony I make it clear that the myriad failures of the immigration system were not the result of regrettable mistakes, but rather by intentional design:

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jack-son Lee, distinguished Members of Congress, members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this opportunity to provide testimony today on the critical issue of the dual missions of the immigration enforcement agencies.

While my prepared testimony will focus on ICE, it’s my understanding that the inspections program of CBP is similarly hobbled in its ability to enforce the immigration laws.

For decades our Nation has had the reputation of being the can-do Nation; if we could dream it, we could accomplish it. Our Nation’s entry into both world wars ended with victory. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our scientists and engineers to land men on the moon and return them safely to the Earth, in less than a decade we again rose to the challenge.

Today our Nation is challenged by many problems, and the one issue that impacts so many of these other issues, the enforcement and the administration of the immigration laws, eludes our purported efforts at solving it.

For decades the immigration crisis—and it is, indeed, a crisis—has grown more significant, and its repercussions have increased expo-nentially. We are waging a war on terror and a war on drugs. The immigration component of this battle, of which not only the lives of our citizens, but the survival of our nation itself is on the line, appears to be insoluble. I am here today to tell you that we can control our Nation’s borders, and we can effectively administer and enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S.

In order to gain control of our borders and our immigration programs, we need to see [them as part of a] system; we also need to understand that the interior enforcement program is critical to gaining control over our Nation’s borders.

Nearly half of the illegal aliens do not enter the country by running the border, but rather by being admitted through a port-of-entry and then subsequently violating their terms of admission. Special agents are desperately needed to not only seek to arrest illegal aliens, but to conduct field investigations to uncover immigration fraud to restore integrity to the benefits program which has been historically plagued with high fraud rates. This is especially troubling as we wage a war on terror. The 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel made it clear that this dysfunction of bureaucracy aided the terrorists who wrought so much damage upon our Nation.

The fact is that many of the managers of ICE appear more focused on traditional Customs-oriented investigations than they are on enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act to safeguard our Nation from terrorists and criminals who have become adept at hiding in plain sight by making use of gaping loopholes and deficiencies in the immigration bureaucracy that go undetected by the law enforcement agency that is supposed to enforce these laws.

Since the merger of legacy INS and legacy Customs into ICE, the new ICE special agents are no longer even being given Spanish language training, even though it’s been estimated that some 80 percent of the illegal alien population is, in fact, Spanish-speaking. It is impossible to investigate individuals you are unable to communicate with, yet this critical language training program has been eliminated from the curriculum of new ICE agents. I have to believe that this represents more than a simple oversight on the part of the leaders at the Academy; it underscores an absolute lack of desire to enforce the critical immigration laws.

If anything, our agents should be getting additional language training as we seek to uncover aliens operating within our Nation’s borders who are a threat to our well-being. Strategic languages such as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu should be added to the curriculum, along with Chinese, Korean and other such languages; yet at present the curriculum not only fails to mandate any foreign language training, it doesn’t even offer any foreign language training.

Identity documents are the lynchpins that hold the immigration program together, yet incredibly, while other law enforcement agencies provide in-service document training to their personnel to help them recognize altered or counterfeited identity documents, ICE does not. Immigration law training is not as effective as it needs to be.

Besides the extreme lack of resources that have been the focus at previous hearings, we need to make certain that the people in charge of enforcing the immigration laws have a true understanding of the laws and have a clear sense of mission that many key managers appear to lack. At present, nearly every field office of ICE is headed by a Special Agent-in-Charge who came from the U.S. Customs Service and not from the former INS. The immigration laws are highly complex and require that the executives who are charged with leading the enforcement effort have a thorough understanding of the laws that they are responsible for enforcing. They should have real-world experience at investigating and aiding in the prosecution of criminal organizations that produce fraudulent documents, promote fraud schemes to circumvent the immigration laws, and engage in large-scale human trafficking or the smuggling of criminal or terrorist aliens into the U.S. They should also have real-world experience and understanding of the ways in which proper enforcement of the immigration laws can synergistically act as a force multiplier when ICE agents team up with law enforcement officers from other law enforcement agencies.

The effective enforcement of immigration laws can also help to cultivate informants to facilitate not only investigations into immigration law violations, but into other areas of concern, including narcotics investigations, gang investigations, and terrorism investigations.

The current lack of leadership that is experienced in immigration law enforcement, the lack of effective training and the previously examined lack of resources have been disastrous for the enforcement of the immigration laws, thereby imperiling our Nation and our people.

It is vital that there be real accountability and real leadership where immigration is concerned. While Customs and Immigration were both border enforcement agencies, the border is where their similarities begin and end. I would, therefore, strongly recommend that the law enforcement officers charged with enforcing the immigration laws have a dedicated chain of command with a budget and training program that focuses on immigration. Certainly they can and should work cooperatively with the former Customs enforcement agents, but they need a separate identity in order to make certain that the current “Customization” of immigration law enforcement stops immediately for the security of our Nation. The enforcement of our immigration statutes needs to be the priority, and not an afterthought.

Back then some members of the Republican Party had the courage and integrity to confront the President about failures of the immigration system, even though that President was himself a Republican. Today President Trump faces fierce, bi-partisan attacks for trying to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.

I made mention of Rep. Lamar Smith and his
remarks about the lack of resources to enforce our immigration laws. He made crystal clear his disappointment with the administration of George W. Bush, a fellow Texas Republican, in its failing to provide funding and leadership where immigration law enforcement was concerned.

I hasten to add that I am not being a partisan in stating my opinion. For the record, I have been a registered Democrat ever since I voted in my first election more decades ago than I care to remember. First and foremost I have always thought of myself as an American. How the times and our political “leaders” have changed! The issues that we are considering have nothing to do with “Left” or “Right.” They are all about right or wrong!

Globalists come in all shapes and sizes. They hate the concept of sovereign nations. They have flooded the campaign contribution war chests of politicians from both parties. George Soros and the Koch brothers are on the identical page where immigration-related issues are concerned.

Many decent Americans have been snookered by the promoters of mass immigration to believe that our immigration laws, and those who seek to have them fairly but effectively enforced, are xenophobic racists. In point of fact, our immigration laws are utterly and totally blind as to race, religion, or ethnicity.

CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors who stand guard over America’s ports of entry applying and enforcing our immigration laws in determining whether or not to admit aliens are guided by one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — Title 8, U.S. Code, Section 1182, which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness, are criminals, human rights violators, human traffickers, drug smugglers, war criminals, terrorists, spies, or aliens who had been previously deported from the U.S. and did not have authorization to return, or had committed visa fraud.

Additionally, aliens are to be excluded if they are likely to become public charges because they did not have the financial resources to care for themselves, or in the case of nonimmigrant (temporary visitors), were likely to seek illegal employment, thus displacing American workers and/or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed.

Aliens who evade the inspections process do so because they know that they are within one or more categories of aliens who are statutorily ineligible to enter the U.S. for reasons I enumerated above.

As Americans we share common goals and concerns. As an INS agent I arrested aliens from around the world of every race, every religion, and every ethnicity.

The complaint about families being separated at the U.S./Mexican border is cynicism at its worst. Those children would never have been separated from their parents (if indeed they were smuggled across the southwest border by their actual family members) if crimes had not been committed by the adults who brought them here.

No one complains when children are taken from their parents who mistreat them or leave them in deadly hot cars to suffocate in the summer time. It is expected that unfit parents will lose custody of their children to protect them from further harm.

It is estimated that about 3,000 children have been separated from their families by the Border Patrol, yet the activists want ICE to be disbanded. Religious groups rushed psychologists to care for the “traumatized children” who had been smuggled into the U.S. In my article for FrontPageMagazine.com, July 19, 2018, I revealed uncomfortable facts about the “family separation” issue, “The Left’s Embarrassing Plea For Open Borders,” which included the following:

The website Children’s Rights posted a section on Foster Care that included the following statistics:

On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the U.S.

In 2016, over 687,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.

On average,children remain in state care for nearly two years,and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young,the average age of kids entering care is 7.

In 2016,more than half of children entering U.S. foster care were young people of color.

While most children in foster care live in family settings,a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.

How many psychologists carrying Teddy bears were dispatched, with lights flashing and sirens blaring, to care for those traumatized children?

By words and deeds, our political leaders, journalists, and judges solemnly invoke objections to the alleged “unconstitutionality” of President Trump’s efforts to finally secure the borders and enforce our nation’s immigration laws while ignoring Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: “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.”

Invasion has been defined in part, in Dictionary.com, as:

• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans.

• an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain: random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The popular misconception about immigration law enforcement focuses attention on the U.S. Border Patrol. Indeed, the Border Patrol mission is extremely important and dangerous, securing our nation’s borders against the unlawful entry of individuals and materials by circumventing the inspections process at ports of entry.

Obviously our borders must be secured. However, nearly half of all illegal aliens did not run our nation’s borders but entered through ports of entry and then, in one way or another, violated the terms of their admission.

The Border Patrol has no role to play in locating and arresting aliens who violate their terms of admission into the U.S. by violating their visas. This is a responsibility of ICE. ICE searches for aliens who fail to show up for immigration hearings and also conducts investigations into crooked employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens. ICE agents participate in various other task forces such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force where I spent the final ten years of my career.

The 9/11 Commission identified immigration and visa fraud as the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists, and not just the 19 terrorist hijackers who so savagely attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, but a list of other terrorists the Commission investigated.

Immigration fraud undermines the integrity of the immigration system and national security. Such investigations are not conducted by the Border Patrol but by ICE.

America should indeed be a true sanctuary where Americans and law-abiding immigrants are safe. That would certainly fulfill President Lincoln’t dream of a government: “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The True History of Millstone Babies

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Social Contract Press. © Copyright 2018 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X. (Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract). The featured photo is by Joey Csunyo on Unsplash.

Judicial Anti-Semitism Under The Color of Law

In the Holocaust, Jewish lawyers and judges were dragged out of courtrooms by Nazis during trials in public displays of anti-Semitism. Decades later, anti-Semitism in America’s courtrooms is displayed alternatively. I have personally witnessed the anti-Semitic decimation of the legacies of multiple Holocaust Survivor families.

Case in point No. 1:

In Sarasota, Florida, in 2018, the will and trust of Esther Lampel, widow of Holocaust Survivor, John Lampel, was overturned entirely by Judge Andrea McHugh, who based her ruling on her idea that Esther was afflicted with an “insane delusion” if she believed that her son, Geoffrey Lampel, 63, did not love her and wanted her money. Although Esther Lampel left hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Jewish charity that serves Holocaust Survivors and other needy elders nationwide, Judge McHugh did not agree with Esther’s choice of the Holocaust Survivor charity as beneficiary but instead awarded Esther’s assets to Geoffrey, who had already received hundreds of thousands of dollars from his mother.

Judge McHugh overlooked entirely that Geoffrey had fraudulently withheld over $100,000 in trust assets from Esther’s trust, had illegally accessed bank statements from Esther’s accounts, and had changed the mailing address of Esther’s accounts from Esther’s residence in Sarasota to Geoffrey’s home in Landing, New Jersey, where Esther had never lived.

Judge McHugh overlooked Geoffrey’s acts of fraud and conspiracy to defraud the Jewish charity and vetoed Esther’s final wishes. Judge McHugh vetoed hundreds of pages of medical records signed by numerous licensed physicians and licensed nurses that were devoid of any diagnosis that Esther, at 91 years of age, had ever had mental problems or was incompetent.

Thus, one judge overlooked and overruled the express wishes of a Jewish widow to honor her husband’s memory by a donation to a Holocaust education and services charity. In one courtroom ruling, a Jewish family’s legacy was decimated.

Case No. 2:

Well over 1,000 miles away from Sarasota, the Indianapolis probate case of Holocaust Survivor, Al Katz, has dragged on for more than eight years, leaving Al’s family bereft of all its inheritance. The court-appointed estate attorney and administrator, one-in-the-same person, Robert W. York, a long-time adversary of Al’s Jewish family, has committed fraud, perjury, and loss of estate assets on innumerable occasions under the court supervision of Judge James Joven without consequence for the crimes. Indeed, Judge Joven has refused for years to hold Robert W. York responsible for his criminal acts of unlicensed practice of law on behalf of Al Katz’s estate and multiple other crimes.

After over eight years of estate litigation, supervised by the court, Al Katz’s adored great-grandchildren have been left with no inheritance from their “Big Papa,” and the debts owed to Al’s family by his estate have never been paid. In court, Al Katz’s legacy as a generous Holocaust Survivor of seven years of slave labor in temperatures of 52 degrees below zero has been decimated and his memory disgraced.

Case No. 3:

Holocaust Survivor, Marie Winkelman, had a revocable trust worth $3,000,000, which was changed against her will to irrevocable by the signature of Sarasota County Judge Deno Economou, who authorized hundreds of thousands of dollars from Marie’s trust to be paid to a host of lawyers and other professionals fighting to have Marie declared incompetent and to have court control over her sizeable assets to benefit those seeking a ruling of incompetence. Although a psychiatrist of high repute found Marie to be competent, Judge Economou ruled otherwise, putting Marie’s reputation into disrepute and decimating her assets.

Perhaps, it is mere chance that the judicial caste has cast Jews and the families of Holocaust Survivors into stormy seas by courtroom rulings that ruin lives and reputations and decimate legacies, or perhaps anti-Semitism runs rampant and unchecked in the halls of American jurisprudence like the numerous middle school students running down hallways during “Kick-a-Jew Day” in Naples, Florida, where a lawsuit on behalf of the Jewish victims was dismissed.

In the eyes of the law, Jews are far too often dismissed and overruled, as anti-Semitism has found a cozy niche in which to inhabit under color of law.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Videos of Andrew Gillum Staffer: Florida a ‘cracker state,’ Gillum a ‘crazy progressive’

Sean Hannity covered the Project Veritas undercover video interview with Andrew Gillum’s staffer Omar Smith.

Watch the segment:

Omar Smith, after the revelations and racist comments, was fired by the Gillum campaign.

James O’Keefe did a followup interview with Omar Smith.

RELATED ARTICLE: Andrew Gillum and the Mystery of 311 East Jennings Street

EDITORS NOTE: This article with video and images are republished with permission.

University of Denver hosts ‘White Privilege Symposium’

  • The University of Denver is hosting a variety of workshops as part of the annual “White Privilege Symposium.”
  • Workshops offered include “White Accountability” and “Colored White: A Discussion On White Identity.”

The University of Denver will host and sponsor the annual “White Privilege Symposium,” (WPS) which is set up to “examine patterns, cultures, and systems that contribute to identity, power, and privilege,” on Friday and Saturday.

The symposium will feature breakout sessions such as “Anti-Racist Allyship: Avoiding The Pitfalls,” “Colleagial Check-In for POC: Needing Connection While Managing Whiteness,” “Colored White: A Discussion On White Identity,” “White Accountability,” and more, according to the symposium website,

“How are folks engaged in this work really problematizing their own white fragility, defensiveness, tokenization of POC, etc., and how can you become an even better ally/accomplice?”

“Helping white people understand the difference between accountability and blame and challenging white people to use this knowledge to check their own white [privilege] and to dismantle the systems of racism that permeate this country,” is the stated purpose of the session.

Another workshop titled “Similar but Separate” seeks to explain the difference between black and brown women to the audience.

“We will explain the differences of black and brown women in Colorado,” that description states. “Many people believe black and brown women experience the same inequalities; however we do not.”

The “Anti-Racist Allyship: Avoiding the Pitfalls” workshop even criticizes the “good progressive or liberal” who considers themselves an “anti-racist ally.”The description asks progressives and liberals, “what happens when you are challenged, to think of yourself and your work differently?”

“Quite often, POC find ourselves disappointed, shocked, and saddened by how frequently the ‘ally,’ especially the white ally, reveals themselves to be anything but,” it explains. “How are folks engaged in this work really problematizing their own white fragility, defensiveness, tokenization of POC, etc., and how can you become an even better ally/accomplice?”

When Campus Reform asked the University of Denver what the university is doing to sponsor the program, the school said it is letting the WPS use university space. If members of the community disagree with the content in the symposium, they are encouraged to come and discuss the issue, the school told Campus Reform.

“The University of Denver brings together people and communities with diverse and opposing viewpoints and we invite members of our community to engage in civil discourse regardless of subject. We strive to create an inclusive environment that fosters the intellectual growth of our students, alumni, and the greater, global community,” the school told Campus Reform. “Within that environment, we encourage each individual to engage in respectful discourse and the critical examination of ideas. Freedom of expression is crucial to the mission of the University of Denver.”

The UD Graduate School of Social Work is sponsoring the WPS as well as The University of Colorado-Denver.

COLUMN BY

Adam Sabes

ADAM SABES

Mississippi Senior Campus Correspondent

Adam Sabes is Mississippi Senior Campus Correspondent, and reports liberal bias and abuse on campus for Campus Reform. He is a junior at Mississippi State University, where he is majoring in Journalism. He also contributes to Red Alert Politics.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CUNY cuts class calling for ‘Abolition of Whiteness’

Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces ‘whiteness’

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

UMich hosts anti-Israel activists two days after synagogue massacre

  • The University of Michigan hosted an event featuring speakers supporting divestment from Israel two days after a massacre which claimed the lives of 11 individuals at a Jewish synagogue.
  • UMich’s College Republicans chapter demanded that the school apologize for hosting the event, but the Arabic and Islamic culture professor who hosted it called the claim that BDS is anti-Semitic “patently false.”

The University of Michigan hosted a town hall comprised entirely of anti-Israel speakers on Monday, just two days after the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre left 11 people dead, the worst anti-Semitic attack in American history.

UMich billed the event as a “teach-in town hall” explaining “what is BDS? And why does it matter?” The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls for an end to international support of Israel’s “oppression of Palestinians.”

“What is fair and just, in light of our diverse histories: members of the U-M community recall boycotts of Jewish businesses in Nazi Europe, America’s history of civil rights boycotts, and boycotts in response to Palestinian displacement under Israeli Occupation?” the event description asks.

The town hall event announcement listed several prominent celebrities, including the singer Lorde, who canceled their events in protest of Israel.

UMich’s Arab and Muslim American Studies department, Department of Women Studies, Conflict and Peace Initiative; Colonialism, Race, and Sexualities Initiative; Department of American Culture, and the Middle Eastern Law Students Association (MELSA) were among the entities that funded the event.

Anti-Israel activists Susan Abulhawa, Tom Pessah, and Huwaida Arraf spoke at the event.

Abulhawa, a novelist, tweeted in 2013, “How many times must we become refugees? Why? So every American and European Jew can have dual citizenship?”

Pessah is a former board member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at UC Berkeley, according to CanaryMission.org. As a student, he authored a BDS resolution encouraging the UC Board of Regents to end its association with any “American companies materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.”

Pessah has also praised a hunger strike led by Marwan Barghouti. The Palestinian Authority and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, groups which Barghouti has led and founded, respectively, have conducted terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens.

Arraf, meanwhile, is a co-founder of International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which aims to resist “the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population, using non-violent, direct-action methods and principles.”

The ISM has been accused of providing material support to terrorists. Arraf, himself, once co-authoreda piece claiming that “the Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics — both nonviolent and violent.”

UMich’s Monday event came two days after a gunman opened fire at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, killing 11 people. The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization that fights anti-semitism, says the attack: “is the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States.”

Dylan Berger, President of the College Republican chapter at UMich, told Campus Reform that the university should apologize for hosting the BDS event.

“Our College Republicans community is devastated by the heinous attack in Pittsburgh,” Berger said. “It’s incomprehensible to imagine that someone would want to gun down innocent people in a place of worship. It’s an attack on the very essence of America. Unfortunately, this attack is indicative of the rising tide of anti-Semitism all over the country.”

“The University of Michigan, in particular, has seen a culture of anti-Semitism arise with a vengeance,” he told Campus Reform. “The BDS Movement is at the center of the rising tide of anti-Semitism on campus. Make no mistake: an economic war against Israel is modern-day anti-Semitism.”

“While those who support this movement should have a right to espouse their views, the event in question should have been canceled,” Berger continued. “It was wildly inappropriate to hold a BDS event mere days after such a vile anti-Semitic attack. College Republicans stand in solidarity with the Jewish Community on campus. The university should apologize for holding this event.”

The event was organized by UMich’s Center for Middle Eastern & North African Studies (CMENAS), an entity directed by Samer Mahdy Ali. Ali, who also serves as an Arabic and Islamic culture professor at UMich, commented on the event to Campus Reform.

CMENAS “did in fact host a BDS event on Monday, and we did, in fact, consider canceling it, but we decided to proceed with the event with substantial modifications to acknowledge and integrate the horrific events of the Shabbat massacre,” Ali said. “Many of our Jewish friends from Hillel attended the BDS event, along with Jewish and Israeli left students affiliated with Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow and the Israeli organization Boycott from Within.”

Ali termed the claim that BDS is anti-Semitic “patently false.”

“BDS opposes the apartheid laws and policies that oppress millions of Palestinians as well as Israelis who are dark-skinned, such as Yemeni, Mizrahi, and Ethiopian Jews,” he told Campus Reform. “There is nothing inherently Jewish about oppression. Israel in its current form stands in violation of post-WWII international norms, International Law, and the Geneva Convention. It has been characterized as “an apartheid state” by Nobel Peace Laureates Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, among others, because of racist laws and policies toward the indigenous population. Our event shows that many Jews and Palestinians and their allies want a more just and hopeful future for all.”

UMich punished in October a pro-BDS professor who refused to write a recommendation for a student intending to study abroad because that student wanted to study in Israel.

The BDS movement expands well beyond the University of Michigan.  Students at Barnard University voted earlier this year to demand the school end its ties with eight allegedly pro-Israel companies.

“Schools that are promoting BDS or other kinds of anti-Zionist rhetoric…are three to eight times more likely to have incidents that target Jewish students for harm,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz said in 2014. “These have included assault, the suppression of speech, and destruction of property.”

COLUMN BY

Autumn Price

AUTUMN PRICE

Virginia Campus Correspondent

Autumn Price is a Virginia Campus Correspondent, and reports liberal bias and abuse on campus for Campus Reform. She is a law student at Liberty University School of Law.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UMich punishes prof who denied Israel recommendation

UMich caves after DOJ calls speech policies ‘unconstitutional

Anti-Trump UMich protesters use ‘privileged folx’ as shield

College: Prof’s refusal to write Israel letter ‘disappointing’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is a screengrab: YouTube/KDKA-TV.

Other Than the Shooter, Who is Responsible for Synagogue Carnage?

After the tragic Saturday shooting that claimed 11 lives at a Pittsburgh synagogue, there has been, lamentably, a predictable response. Seizing upon the incident, leftists are blaming President Trump and his supporters for creating a “climate of hate.” In response to this and the notion that it justifies suppression of speech, others will say that only one man is responsible, mass murderer Robert Bowers. Yet there’s far more to this matter than either position indicates.

Let’s start by acknowledging that words can influence others. Sayings such as “The pen is mightier than the sword” attest to this, and it’s why we offer opinion and render commentary: we’re hoping to influence people, to spur them on to proper remedial action.

It follows from this, however, that some unstable individuals may take improper action, especially in a disparate nation 328 million strong. This is true no matter what is said. If you rail against thievery, someone may go out and murder a reformed ex-thief.

Now, killer Bowers was clear on his motivation: he was upset about the continual illegal wave migration into the U.S. As to the influence of speech, if there had been a complete blackout these last years on talk of illegal migration, would Bowers have committed his crime?

Most likely not.

Yet it’s also possible that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wouldn’t have perpetrated his crimes had there been a blackout on discussion of the threats posed by technology.

In addition, it’s highly probable that,

  • “revenge” attacks on whites wouldn’t have occurred following the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair if the media hadn’t intensely focused on the case;
  • the 2017 congressional-baseball shooting, the sending of ricin to Trump and leading Republicans, the attacks on GOP offices and the more than 600 cases of assault or harassment of conservatives wouldn’t have occurred had the media not expressed anti-Trump views;
  • the Boston Tea Party and War for Independence wouldn’t have occurred if revolutionaries hadn’t espoused anti-British sentiment;
  • the War between the States wouldn’t have occurred if abolitionists didn’t rail against slavery; and
  • attacks on innocent priests wouldn’t have occurred had the media not focused on the Catholic Church sex scandal.

So should we just shut-up and discuss nothing? After all, expressing beliefs on serious matters is “divisive.” Yet since there can’t be division without at least two opposing sides, the question is: who is morally responsible for the division and the violent by-products of it? Is it the person who by espousing Truth angers lovers of lies?

Or is it espousers of lies who anger both lovers of Truth and misguided adherents of other lies?

This brings us back to Trump-hating Bowers and illegal migration. The leftist immigrationists would like patriots to just shut-up and stop complaining about the influx of what they call “undocumented immigrants seeking a better life.” Patriots would prefer that they’d shut-up, stop opposing border security and immigration enforcement, and cease abetting what we may call an invasion. One side is right and the other wrong.

It is the wrong one that’s morally responsible, indirectly, for inciting people such as Bowers.

Note that there are many good reasons to oppose the invasion. These include the monetary costs associated with illegal migrants; the crimes they commit and diseases they bring; the strain on our resources; and, most significantly, the nation-rending effect of rapid and irreversible demographic and cultural change.

In contrast, the immigrationists are dishonest about their motives. They claim to care about poor migrants, but what really animates them is power. Eighty-five to 90 percent of our post-1968 immigrants have hailed from the Third World, and the Left knows full well that 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon naturalization. Leftists are cementing power by importing voters.

The principle is, if you can’t get the people to change the government, change the people. It’s the most ignoble of things, using a foreign army to overcome the will of patriots.

Moreover, immigrationists throw salt in the wound by attacking those opposing the invasion as xenophobes, as uncompassionate, as white supremacists. It’s as if someone helps a criminal break into your home and then castigates you for complaining. It’s maddening. Certain unhinged people find it so, too — only, they may resort not to the ballot box but the ammo box, targeting innocents in the process.

Unfortunately, this division can’t be wished away, and there is no common ground. Whether or not the immigrationists believe in their hearts they’re right, they certainly act as if they were and won’t relent. As for patriots, we are right and know that the importation of a vast foreign electoral army to help destroy Americanism’s last vestiges cannot be accepted. These are irreconcilable differences.

Obviously, Robert Bowers is directly responsible for his evil actions. But insofar as there is indirect responsibility for an irrational act relating to an issue, it lies with those pushing an irrational position on the issue.

Virtually all the last years’ violent rhetoric and actions have originated with the Left. We’ll see more of this, too, since leftists won’t stop being what they are. At times, there’ll also be what the liberals called “blowback” when the issue was Muslim terrorism (the Florida bomber may be such as example). Then there’ll be the occasional unhinged, terroristic individual who blames innocents for what the guilty have done. That’s life in a divided nation.

Whether hot and international or cold and cultural, war involves having at least two opposing sides. Who is to blame? It’s never those speaking and advancing Truth with a civil tongue.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.

Diverse and Divided

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Board of Directors issued a comprehensive statement in 2006, whose combined language included helping students to connect their education to societal issues, change inequities, and to promote cultural empathy, pluralism, and diversity in a liberal education.  The key words for determining the value of today’s education, which are severely undermining western civilization, however, are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Diversity used to define the variety of learning experiences, opinions, and opportunities for a well-rounded education, but the term now applies to the students themselves – their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, and disability – and how they are to be divided and classified for acceptance into the institute of higher indoctrination.   Meritocracy, then, has been set aside for a quota system based on superficialities, which is passionately supported by the University of Michigan (U-M), among others.  Its spending for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity, reported on October 10, 2016, was $40 million per year with an additional $85 million proposed over the next five years.  Another strategic plan for an “inclusive and equitable campus community” required $17 million, and $31 million would be taken from the university’s general fund – increased tuition (by 3.9 percent), student fees, and appropriations granted by state lawmakers – more than double the rate of inflation.  Liberal programs of propaganda are indeed expensive propositions. As we shall see, the key words are a whitewash of deception, while an assault is being waged against the very education that these students hope to obtain.

Lest we assume that U-M is alone in its objectives, Colorado State University has a “Bias Hotline,” where one may report any conduct, speech or prejudice that could be seen as intimidating, demeaning, degrading, marginalizing, victimizing, or threatening to individuals or groups based on that individual group’s actual or perceived speech or behavior.  This is, of course, a violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, but also a means of robbing students of coping skills they’ll need in the adult world.  In keeping with the times, the U-M also implemented a hotline for citing microaggressions, discrimination, and incivility by students and instructors alike, where one might even report an offense at not being addressed by a preferred pronoun.

Further, university President Mark Schlissel nominated the school’s first chief diversity officer to distinguish and root out discrimination, for a hefty annual salary of $385,000 (within the diversity office payroll of $11 million).  This preoccupation with denouncing someone for mis-speaking strongly resembles the Nazi HJ-Streifendienst (Patrol Force).  The divisiveness causes  suspicion and greater rifts between student groups, as well as a purposeful disconnect from school camaraderie and national unity.

In order to gain Inclusivity, however, the minority students must declare their Exclusivity, their distinction to the group with which they align. This is a regression to tribalism with an increased hostility toward others, to gain power in their common victimhood, to seek more privileges and prestige from the more numerous white, straight, Christian (conservative) males, whom they now view as oppressors and label “white supremacists.”  It is also a total disregard for E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.  They are not accepting that America was founded by Whites, that the end of slavery was achieved by Whites, and that our nation’s growth and prosperity was realized by Whites.  England’s Shakespeare and other masters in their fields, also Whites, have been removed from many curricula, an intentional depletion of scholarship for the sake of activism and the new equity.

Additional agitators have singled out Jews as oppressors, providing the setting for racist, fascist, Klan, Nazi, and pro-Palestinian groups to isolate, boycott, and protest the existence of Israel and Jews – even with violence.  Jewish instructors have been isolated, harassed and sometimes forced to leave because of threats to their families.  Jewish students are the prey of biased teachers and antisemitic groups.  Disturbingly, the new school culture strongly suggests an alignment with the strategy of the left and ideology of Islam.

In the past, Equity meant equal opportunities for all students to rise as far as their own abilities, hard work, and talent would take them.  Today it means accepting an equal number of students defined by social issues to produce like-minded mediocrity.   The new “cultural training programs” do not address the American culture, and the “language police” are engaged to monitor and restrict the use of words deemed offensive to the diverse groups.  Their apparent purpose is to change the student’s focus – from correct to politically correct, from justice to social justice, from the groundwork for their future occupations to their groundless preoccupations.  Visiting speakers with new ideas are usually unwelcome, and aggression, comparable to the left or Islamic incitement, is promoted to shut down those who dare to impart their opposing views.

Needless to say, because the student pool is no longer the “best and brightest,” it has become necessary to change teaching methods and criteria – reduced requirements to meet reduced abilities, and to qualify for federal grant money.  Education finally accommodates Hillary Clinton’s deceptive trope, “no child left behind.”

Inclusion is now an identity-based, rather than an industry- and achievement-based, system of quotas, and students who once qualified for a university education may now be disqualified if his/her marginalized group has not gained acceptance.  For example, Harvard, among others, has sought to limit the number of Asian-American applicants when it exceeds the quota, despite that group’s exceptional achievements in scholastics, extracurricular activities and interests.  Accordingly, academia is willing to deny superior students’ entry to prestigious schools in order to offer the opportunity to less capable students who, further down the road, may be overwhelmed and obliged to quit.   As for the Jewish students, on far too many campuses, they are targets of harassment, vandalism, exclusion from campus activities, and calls for expulsion, while leftist schools protect the vandals by declaring their attacks to be “free speech.”

Once again, this “education” appears to be geared to the destruction of democracy.  The mechanism leads us through Neotribalism (breakdown of social structure, friendship and community), opposing white students and isolating Jewish students, eroding the male identity, curbing thoughts and speech, and the weakened education, as the left prepares the students for a parallel Islamic legal system.

Another example is the university’s Institute for Research on Women & Gender’s sponsoring an event in February, 2018, titled, “Pederastic Kinship: Deidealizing Queer Studies,” which focused on pederasty, that is to say, sexual relationships between an adult and underage boys.  By its mere presentation, the criminal deviancy was validated, again dishonoring masculinity, and encouraging a behavior that is tolerated in many Muslim societies.

The Jewish victimization is being addressed.  The U of M’s President Mark Schlissel and administrators  have received notification from The Lawfare Project for reports that John Cheney-Lippold, American culture professor, and Lucy Peterson, graduate teaching assistant, denied Jewish students’ their earned letters of recommendation to study abroad in, specifically, Israel.  Another student divulged that her instructor said her degree was contingent upon her watching a slide presentation that contained historic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories: one equating Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler, and another depicting Jews as money-hungry pigs.  In fact, Lawfare is monitoring several universities across the country that have created hostile antisemitic environments, and is now demanding from the U-M immediate and concrete steps to unambiguously condemn anti-Semitism in order to provide a “safe academic environment for Jewish and Israeli students,” in keeping with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism.  The First Amendment was not established as a shield for bigotry.

To paraphrase a quote by Shannon L. Adler:  Before a student or educator calls himself any of the identities recognized by the schools’ programs, one must first learn to be human.

RELATED ARTICLE: University of Denver hosts ‘White Privilege Symposium’

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Devin Edwards on Unsplash.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.