Why Capitalism Is Morally Superior to Socialism

Several recent polls, plus the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., demonstrate that young people prefer socialism to free market capitalism.

That, I believe, is a result of their ignorance and indoctrination during their school years, from kindergarten through college. For the most part, neither they nor many of their teachers and professors know what free market capitalism is.

Free market capitalism, wherein there is peaceful voluntary exchange, is morally superior to any other economic system. Why? Let’s start with my initial premise.

All of us own ourselves. I am my private property, and you are yours. Murder, rape, theft, and the initiation of violence are immoral because they violate self-ownership. Similarly, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another person, for any reason, is immoral because it violates self-ownership.

Tragically, two-thirds to three-quarters of the federal budget can be described as Congress taking the rightful earnings of one American to give to another American—using one American to serve another. Such acts include farm subsidies, business bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, and many other programs.

Free market capitalism is disfavored by many Americans—and threatened—not because of its failure but, ironically, because of its success. Free market capitalism in America has been so successful in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind—such as disease, pestilence, hunger, and gross poverty—that all other human problems appear both unbearable and inexcusable.

The desire by many Americans to eliminate these so-called unbearable and inexcusable problems has led to the call for socialism. That call includes equality of income, sex, and race balance; affordable housing and medical care; orderly markets; and many other socialistic ideas.

Let’s compare capitalism with socialism by answering the following questions: In which areas of our lives do we find the greatest satisfaction, and in which do we find the greatest dissatisfaction?

It turns out that we seldom find people upset with and in conflict with computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores. We do see people highly dissatisfied with and often in conflict with boards of education, motor vehicles departments, police, and city sanitation services.

What are the differences? For one, the motivation for the provision of services of computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores is profit. Also, if you’re dissatisfied with their services, you can instantaneously fire them by taking your business elsewhere.

It’s a different matter with public education, motor vehicles departments, police, and city sanitation services. They are not motivated by profit at all. Plus, if you’re dissatisfied with their service, it is costly and in many cases, even impossible to fire them.

A much larger and totally ignored question has to do with the brutality of socialism. In the 20th century, the one-party socialist states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and the People’s Republic of China were responsible for the murder of 118 million citizens, mostly their own.

The tallies were: USSR, 62 million; Nazi Germany, 21 million; and People’s Republic of China, 35 million. No such record of brutality can be found in countries that tend toward free market capitalism.

Here’s an experiment for you. List countries according to whether they are closer to the free market capitalist or to the socialist/communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank the countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank the countries according to Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” report.

You will find that people who live in countries closer to the free market capitalist end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater wealth than people who live in countries toward the socialistic/communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections.

As Thomas Sowell says, “Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.”

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Who Was the Biggest Mass Murderer in History?

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

Second Thoughts on First Amendment?

If there were a book on how to agitate an anti-faith extremist, chapter one would almost certainly recommend talking about the importance of religious liberty in America. That definitely worked on LA Times’s opinion writer Michael McGough, who was so perturbed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech on international religious freedom report that he spent 446 words quibbling over the order of our First Amendment.

What did the secretary say that was so offensive, exactly? Nothing that isn’t common knowledge to everyone who’s taken fifth grade history. “Religious freedom is in the American bloodstream,” Pompeo said. “It’s what brought the pilgrims here from England. Our founders understood it as our first freedom. That is why they articulated it so clearly in the First Amendment.”

McGough, who must have missed the class on religious persecution in 17th century England, took issue with Pompeo’s observation that religious liberty was the key to all other freedoms. “Not quite,” he fired back.

“[B]y linking ‘first freedom’ to “First Amendment,” the secretary of state seemed also to be suggesting — erroneously — some connection between the two ‘firsts.’ If so, he wouldn’t be alone. In 1993, during a debate on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said: ‘It was no accident that the Framers of our Bill of Rights chose to place the free exercise of religion first among our fundamental freedoms.'”

“It’s true that the 1st Amendment mentions religion before it moves on to guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances… But the idea that this makes either the First Amendment, or freedom of religion, more important than other constitutional rights is a pious fiction.”

Of course, the freedom of religion was of preeminent importance to the framers. They were only a century and a half removed from the nightmare that drove 102 people to take a two-month journey to an unforgiving land on a ship the size of a volleyball court. They didn’t do that because they were adventurers — or in search of great riches. They came here for the freedom King James I denied them: the ability to worship freely and in peace. Years later, Samuel Adams talked about the relationship between these liberties when he said, “Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

If McGough wants to squabble over the order of our First Amendment freedoms, let him. But that still doesn’t alter the reality that a free society hinges on free religion. And, ironically, by invoking Jerrold Nadler (who is as liberal as they come), McGough is exposing just how far outside the mainstream his position really is. If the importance of religious liberty is acknowledged by even the fiercest of New York Democrats, then this reporter is only marginalizing himself by attacking it. That — not Pompeo — is the real extremism.

Religious liberty is for everyone — not just for conservatives, and certainly not just for Americans. It’s a human right on which all other freedoms are built. “God who gave us life gave us liberty,” Thomas Jefferson said. “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Reflects: Hope, Change, and Confusion

‘I Have Set Watchmen on Your Walls, O Jerusalem…

VIDEO: Starbucks CEO Unaware of His Company’s Support for Planned Parenthood

When Starbucks closed over 8,000 stores this week to conduct “racial bias education,” a group of pro-life leaders penned an open letter to CEO Kevin Johnson explaining the company’s complicity in enabling America’s most racist organization: Planned Parenthood. The letter outlines how Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger and the abortion giant targets minority neighborhoods to this day.

Read the letter here.

Alveda C. King, niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., also wrote:

It’s time for corporations like Starbucks that claim to care about “racial-bias” to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s house of horrors, which has taken precious lives away from minority communities and from society at large.

However, in an interview this week, Johnson claimed he did not realize Starbucks supported Planned Parenthood’s racist abortion agenda.

Starbucks’s support for Planned Parenthood has been documented by 2ndVote, and apparently confirmed by a company spokesperson this week:

“Starbucks does not have a corporate relationship or sponsorship with Planned Parenthood. Starbucks is listed as a donor of an organization because the Starbucks ‘Partner Match’ program provides matched cash awards for contributions made by Starbucks partners (employees). … Most 501(c)(3) designated nonprofit organizations in the U.S. and most Registered Charities in Canada qualify to receive matching funds.”

If Starbucks actually does care about eliminating racism, shouldn’t they start by ending all financial ties to Planned Parenthood? Remember, by supporting the abortion giant, Starbucks is also complicit in the abortion industry’s links to sexual abuse and sex trafficking.

Let Starbucks leadership know what you think by sending a message using the buttons below:

Contact Starbucks! Reach Out to Starbucks on Facebook!

You can see all the companies that support Planned Parenthood’s abortion industry on our resource page here.

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Abuse Cover-Ups Haven’t Stopped Starbucks’ Funding of Planned Parenthood

NBC’s Law & Order: White NYPD cop says black judge comes from ‘Planet of the Apes’

A reader sent us a heads up that NBC’s Law & Order- Special Victims Unit is not politically correct. In an email our reader said:

I was watching Hulu last night​ – rerun of NBC Law and Order SVU.

I was shocked when 33 minutes in a cast member says: What planet is the judge from” (referring to a black judge)

Olivia character says: “Planet of the Apes” chuckles all around.

This exchange happens in Season 1 Episode 19.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL EPISODE – FAST FORWARD TO 33:00 MINUTES.

Mariska Hargitay

The detectives that are part of the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit investigate crimes of a sexual nature.

The judge in the case is black. After the judge dismisses a case against a rape suspect, someone asks, “What planet is he from?” New York City police detective Lieutenant Olivia Benson, played by Mariska Hargitay, replies, “Planet of the Apes.”

Fast forward to Rosanne Barr’s tweet. Suddenly saying someone is from the Planet of the Apes is racist. Will NBC apologize for using this comparison to a black judge?

Stand Up America’s Ray DiLorenzo in an article titled “Lighten Up, America. It’s Not Your Fault” writes:

The United States and other Western nations have been assaulted with Political Correctness (PC), the repudiation of saying what you think. It seems to have come from nowhere and on the surface it appears to protect minorities or the disadvantaged from being marginalized. In reality, it is designed to create dissatisfaction with the status quo, culturally, politically, socially, and economically, while creating victimology and deep division among people and groups. It is a loss of proportion, an absence of humor and the freedom to laugh at oneself. It pits good people against each other. [Emphasis added]

DiLorenzo notes, “PC is not a new phenomena. It is at least 100 years old and finds its genesis in Marxist theology during World War I.”

Joseph Stalin wrote, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

Political correctness can kill

Marian Pilatowicz

Being politically incorrect killed my cousin Marian Pilatowicz. According to my families records Marian was a factory worker in occupied Poland during WWII. Marian told a joke to some of his fellow workers about the Germans who controlled his country. Marian was reported to the Gestapo, arrested and executed in the notorious Auschwitz-Berkinau concentration camp on November 3rd, 1942. Marion was 23-years old.

As Voltaire wrote, “To learn who rules over you, simple find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

DiLorenzo concludes, “Political Correctness is intolerance in the name of tolerance…The next time someone tells you they are offended, tell them to lighten up. Hopefully they won’t report you.”

Knock, knock. Who’s there? The thought police!

‘Right to Try” Law Provides Access to Experimental Treatment to 1 Million Terminally Ill Americans

SAN DIEGO, CA /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Congressional Candidate, and San Diego “Top Doctor,” Dr. James Veltmeyer announced today that his wife, cancer patient, Laura Veltmeyer may be one of the one million Americans that stand to benefit from President Trump’s recently signed “Right to Try” Law.

The Law, formally known as “Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Belllina Right to Try Act of 2017” amends existing Federal law to allow certain unapproved, experimental drugs to be administered to terminally ill patients who have exhausted all approved treatment options and are unable to participate in clinical drug trials.

“One of the biggest failings of the Health Care System is that there are hundreds of experimental drugs that potentially benefit terminal patients, but until now, they have been withheld from patients because of bureaucratic processes and red tape. While the FDA must be applauded for their diligence in preventing harmful medicines from entering the USA market, every year terminal patients are forced to go offshore in search of promising treatments that are not available in our own Country,” said Dr. James Veltmeyer, Republican Candidate for the 52nd Congressional District.

President Donald Trump stated in reference to the law “People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure — I want to give them a chance right here at home.”

“My wife and mother of my 2 children, is currently suffering from Stage IV Breast Cancer. As her condition advances, it is comforting to know that my wife now has the choice to receive treatments that can potentially save her life,” said Dr. Veltmeyer.

Dr. Veltmeyer is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Therapeutic Solutions International, a biotechnology company that recently announced its intention to provide access to its StemVax product for terminal patients under the newly passed Law.

“I am running for Congress to represent our community and to fix the Health Care system. The 52nd District houses some of the most advanced biotechnology companies that are developing new treatments for terminal diseases.  It is saddening that the current Congressman for the 52nd District, Scott Peters, not only ignored the rights of terminal patients, but also of biotechnology companies, in voting against this Bill.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Trump kissing Jordan McLinn, a Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy patient, after signing the “Right to Try” act on May 30, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo/AP/Evan Vucci)

UK Busybodies Target Pointed Kitchen Knives, Gun Tattoos

Don’t ever underestimate the British capacity for combining the oppressive with the doltish. This week, the United Kingdom’s decades-long campaign against all things martial sunk to a fresh low when one of the Queen’s more domineering subjects floated a ban on the sale, and possibly the possession, of traditional kitchen utensils. Not to be outdone, other British busybodies demanded satisfaction from a professional athlete whose firearm body art they found objectionable.

In recent months, the UK, and London in particular, has found itself in the grip of a violent crime wave. During February and March of this year, there were more murders in the UK capital than in New York CityStatistical data from the Office for National Statistics released in April noted that in England and Wales crimes “involving a knife or sharp instrument” were up 22 percent in 2017. The report added, “The past three years have seen a rise in the number of recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument…” Despite the island nation’s ever-increasing gun control measures, police also recorded an 11 percent increase in firearms offences for the year. UK criminals have also been using household acids to maim their victims.

A closer look at the data shows that of the offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, robberies involving these weapons increased 35 percent over the previous year. Homicide and sexual assault increased 26 and 24 percent, respectively. Regarding knife and firearms offences, the report indicates that these crimes “tend to be disproportionately concentrated in London and other metropolitan areas.”

In response to the increased bloodshed, last July the UK’s Home Office declared their support for knife turn-in programs and new restrictions on mail order knife sales. The UK prohibits knife sales to those under 18. Under the new Tory proposal, the government would enforce this rule by requiring subjects who order knives through the mail to pick them up at a retailer, where their age would be verified. In response to the acid attacks, last October Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the Tory government’s intent to restrict the sale of corrosive substances.

These heavy-handed tactics aren’t enough for one UK official. In mid-May retiring Luton Crown Court Judge Nic Madge used his valedictory speech as an opportunity to advocate for a ban on the sale, and potentially the possession, of common kitchen knives.

According to a report from the Telegraph, Madge told his audience that the reason why the current knife restrictions have had little effect on violent crime is because “the vast majority of knives carried by youths are ordinary kitchen knives.” Upping the rhetoric, Madge added, “Every kitchen contains lethal knives which are potential murder weapons.” Paralleling a common gun control refrain, Madge asked, “why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points?”

To combat this ever-present culinary threat, Madge proposed, 

I would urge all those with any role in relation to knives – manufacturers, shops, the police, local authorities, the government – to consider preventing the sale of long pointed knives, except in rare, defined, circumstances, and replacing such knives with rounded ends.

To address the countless pointed kitchen knives already owned by British subjects, Madge explained,

It might even be that the police could organise a programme whereby the owners of kitchen knives, which have been properly and lawfully bought for culinary purposes, could be taken somewhere to be modified, with the points being ground down into rounded ends.

Madge failed to address the issue of shanks. UK subjects are likely to have little difficulty constructing the homemade knives, having spent their lives in a prison.

In any other corner of the globe, Madge’s ludicrous policy proposal would have been the week’s most foolish commentary on weapons control. Not so in the Land of Hope and Glory, where even the mere depiction of a firearm is cause for panic.

On Sunday, Jamaica-born UK professional soccer player and English national team member Raheem Sterling posted a photo of a training sessions to his Instagram account. In the photo a tattoo of an M16 rifle is visible on Sterling’s right leg.

On Tuesday, British tabloid The Sun put the photo on the front page of the paper, with the headlines, “Raheem shoots himself in foot,” and “GUN TAT FURY.” According to the paper, the tattoo “triggered fury among anti-gun campaigners.”

Anti-gun activist and founder of UK group Mothers Against Guns Lucy Cope told the Sun that Sterling’s tattoo is “totally unacceptable” and that the footballer “should hang his head in shame.” Revealing the extent of her and her group’s anti-gun lunacy, Cope stated, “We demand he has the tattoo lasered off or covered up with a different tattoo… If he refuses he should be dropped from the England team. He’s supposed to be a role model but chooses to glamorise guns.”

In their race to attack Sterling for his choice of body art, the Sun and Cope neglected to take into account the athlete’s life story. Sterling, who appears to be no fan of firearms, explained, “When I was two my father died from being gunned down to death… I made a promise to myself I would never touch a gun in my life time, I shoot with my right foot so it has a deeper meaning.” According to the New York Times, the way in which Sterling was criticized for his tattoo has led some to wonder whether the outcry was fueled by racial animus.

For their part, the English Football Association has supported Sterling during the anti-gun tantrum, with a spokesperson noting, “He and the rest of the squad are focused solely on preparing for the forthcoming World Cup.”

U.S. gun owners should take careful notice of the UK’s ongoing experience with civilian disarmament. No amount of compromise or appeasement will satisfy anti-gun advocates’ urge for control.

Advocacy-Fueled Hysteria Hides the Truth on School Violence

In the wake of the two recent high-profile school shootings, the institutional gun control movement and many in the mainstream media have taken their always alarmist rhetoric to new heights. Michael Bloomberg anti-gun front group Everytown for Gun Safety has released misleading and routinely debunked figures on the prevalence of school shootings in the U.S. A New York Times columnist, wrote an item following the Houston shooting titled, “This Is School in America Now,” calling such tragedies an “everyday nightmare.” A reporter for the Washington Post authored an article with the salacious and misleading headline “2018 has been deadlier for schoolchildren than service members.” It wasn’t until the fifth paragraph that the Post bothered to mention that there are 50 million public school students as compared to 1.3 members of the military; meaning service in our armed forces is in fact, contrary to the headline, 17 times deadlier. Barack Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan called for a school boycott, while contending that “the threat of gun violence infects everyday life.”

All of this is meant to instill fear in parents and schoolchildren and adolescents in order produce ratings and clicks while pushing a stagnant gun control agenda. A sober look at the data reveals that school mass shootings are extraordinarily rare events and that schools are the safest place a child can be.

Northeastern University Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy James Alan Fox has led extensive academic research on mass shootings. In February, Fox released data he and colleague collected for a forthcoming book titled, “The Three R’s of School Shootings: Risk, Readiness, and Response.”

A Northeastern.edu article that summarized Fox’s research made clear that “Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events.” Further, it pointed out that the researchers found that “shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.”

Quoting Fox, the item went on to state,

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said. “There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents.

Following the shooting in Houston, Fox took to the pages of USA Today to reiterate his call for calm. Fox pointed out that “School shootings, however horrific, are not the new normal,” and that “despite the occasional tragedy, our schools are safe, safer than they have been for decades.”

Other academics have also tried to put the recent tragedies in perspective. Following the shooting in Parkland, Fla., Harvard instructor and expert in risk analysis David Ropeik wrote a piece for the Washington Post titled, “School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?” 

Ropeik explained, 

The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

Ropeik went on to point out,

The chance of a child being shot and killed in a public school is extraordinarily low. Not zero — no risk is. But it’s far lower than many people assume, especially in the glare of heart-wrenching news coverage after an event like Parkland. And it’s far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports.

In a moment of journalistic integrity, the New York Times addressed this topic in a piece titled, “Why Campus Shootings Are So Shocking: School Is the ‘Safest Place’ for a Child.” Director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice Melissa Sickmund told the paper, “Especially in the younger grades, school is the safest place they can be.” Pointing to a report from school safety analysts Safe Havens International, the Times explained, “In some parts of the country, accidents related to high winds, like tornadoes, presented a more deadly threat to children than an active shooter.” Driving the point on risk home in another New York Times piece, columnist Tina Rosenberg wrote, “A school can expect a shooting once every few thousand years.” 

Data from the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics shows that there is not an upward trend in fatal violence in schools. The NCES’s Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2017 report, which measures through 2015, explained,

The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 3 percent of the total number of youth homicides between 1992–93 (when data collection began) and 2014–15, even though the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school varied across the years.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, the overall rate and number of homicide deaths among school-age children and adolescents (ages 5-18) dropped by more than half from 1993 to 2015.

Data from the report also indicates that “threats and injuries with weapons on school property” are decreasing. The report points out that “The percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property was lower in 2015 than in every survey year between 1993… and 2011.”

In light of all of the data showing schools are the safest place for a child, Duncan’s call for parents to keep their children out of school is a galling attempt to score political points with a proposal that would expose children and adolescents to more risk than they would ever face in a classroom. Moreover, Duncan’s comments reveal the altitude of the ivory tower he lives in.

Out here in the real world public schools are the nexus of several vital social services that extend beyond their educational mission. According to a report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 30 million American children rely on their schools for free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. In many cases this includes breakfast and lunch. In recent years, New York City has hesitated to close school for inclement weather because the need for these meals is so acute. Schools are also the avenue by which many children and adolescents in need obtain physical and mental health services.

While Duncan’s set might be fortunate enough to leave their children at home with the nanny, public schools provide a necessary childcare function for working and middle-class families. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that U.S. couples with young children spend 25.6 percent of their income on childcare, while single parents spend 52.7 percent. The Economic Policy Institute determined that in 23 states childcare costs more than in-state public college tuition.

In the midst of the current advocacy-fueled media hysteria, policymakers and concerned citizens should slow down long enough to examine the facts on school safety. A thoughtful analysis of the data reveals that the type of violence seen in Parkland, Fla. and Houston remains rare and that public schools are the safest place for children and adolescents.

Bedrock American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism

Social justice busybodies obsessed with how other people live their lives often portray the success of their causes as a matter of destiny. “The young people will win,” insists one youthful gun control advocate, falsely portraying his personal crusade as a generational mandate. Yet recent events have demonstrated that bedrock American values – including support for the Second Amendment – tend to outlast moments of high emotion that are increasingly relied upon by political opportunists to advance their agenda. Given the chance to collect their thoughts, most Americans instinctively revert to freedom.

We recently commented on this point with reference to poll numbers that show a familiar pattern of gun control support spiking in the immediate aftermath of an infamous firearm-related crime, only to taper off as the punditry aims its fury in another direction or overplays its hand and is forced to regroup. 

Since then, additional evidence has arisen to complicate the media’s breathless narrative that “the ground is shifting on gun control.” 

First, more recent poll numbers underscore the fact that Americans, including young Americans, recognize that the country has far more pressing problems than rushing to enact unproven gun control measures. 

The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.

Moreover, a week after a similar crime in Santa Fe, Texas on May 18, support for gun control in the Lone Star State had actually dropped 6% since April, as measured by Quinnipiac University polling. Support for stricter gun laws was also lower in the May sample among those aged 18 to 34 than among those 65 or older, another inversion of the conventional wisdom that youth are destined to change the national debate on this question. A Quinnipiac analyst opined: “The tragedy at the Santa Fe school south of Houston changed few opinions among Texas voters about gun control. Support for gun control in general is down slightly, while support for background checks for all gun buyers is virtually unchanged.” 

Adding to the gun control advocates’ woes were the release of data and studies that contradicted their claims of a rising epidemic of school shootings fueled by easy access to so-called “assault weapons.” 

The website The74Million.org, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan news site covering education in America,” published a lengthy interview in May with Criminologist Nadine Connell of the University of Texas at Dallas, who’s compiling a database of every school shooting since 1990. The piece underscored Connell’s findings that “school shootings are extremely rare” and that allowing them to drive policy isn’t “always the most productive” way to keep students safe.

Connell indicated that “from the perspective of policymaking,” the media’s current reporting on school shootings can be misleading. “[A]s of now,” she said, “we don’t think there is an increase in the number of incidents as much as there is an increase in the attention to the incidents.” She also stressed that “the number of rampage-like incidents remains extremely low, and they are a relatively small subsection of the shootings we are analyzing.” Schools, Connell said, “are the safest they’ve ever been.” 

While Connell indicated in the interview that she is not a fan of arming teachers, she also declined to put gun control at the center of the debate. When asked what would be the “most effective method to stop the lion’s share of the problem,” she emphasized “whole-school-centered approaches to improve climate, clarify expectations, and support teachers and administrators in creating a community of trust and support.” She also noted that the “environmental design” of schools can play an important role in keeping kids safe without making them feel like they are under siege.

Perhaps more even more ironic was a May 22 report from the Rockefeller Institute that was funded by a multi-state “Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium” representing a who’s-who of Northeastern antigun jurisdictions. Entitled “Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?” the report broadly focuses on mass shootings in general, rather than on school-specific events. 

Like Connell, however, the authors mentioned media distortion as an impediment to understanding the true nature of the problem. “Mass shootings, and those that are particularly lethal, are amplified by the news cycle, making them appear more commonplace when they are, in fact, statistically rare,” they stated. They also characterized the media’s coverage of the events as “unbalanced,” potentially leading the public to “hold disproportional attitudes about the events themselves.” 

The report made the points that mass shootings are not limited to the U.S. but “occur in countries worldwide,” are nearly three times more likely to be perpetrated with handguns than with “assault weapons,” and occur more frequently in workplaces than in schools. Also likely to displease its funders is the report’s observation that gun control laws, whether passed in the immediate wake of a mass shooting or kept on the books for decades “often are not enforced, leading them to be ineffective at preventing the next mass shooting.” But perhaps most damning of all was the authors’ admonition that “[k]nee-jerk reactions rooted in emotion will not solve the problem.” 

Yet that is exactly how gun control advocates operate and what they offer. Whatever can be said about the youthful gun control activists who have captured so much of the media’s attention lately, they are among the prime purveyors of emotionalism and hyperbole. And far from bringing innovative new thinking to the issue, their main “solution” is the tired notion of banning guns that are underrepresented in rampage gun crimes and remain highly popular among the law-abiding. Instead of treating every word out of their mouths as some new game-changing revelation, their gun control seniors should remind them that “assault weapon” bans had until recently been de-emphasized as an embarrassment to the movement and too obvious of its prohibitory intent.

Unlike the latest gun control hashtag or self-congratulatory Hollywood vanity project, the National Rifle Association has been around since 1871. We’ve seen movements come, and we’ve seen movements go. And while we never doubt the sincerity of our opposition in their desire to eradicate the right to keep and bear arms, we’re not about to change our values or objectives just because some media talking heads or youth-obsessed celebrities begin making demands or throwing around half-baked claims.  

Fortunately, the American commitment to freedom also remains strong and resilient. And freedom-loving Americans know they have an ally in the NRA. 

Google Blames Wikipedia for Listing Nazism as One of California Republican Party’s Ideologies

Google reportedly identified one of the ideologies of the California Republican Party as “Nazism” on its highly popular search platform.

The piece of inaccurate information, which is hyperlinked to presumably take web browsers to more information about the hateful, fascist persuasion, is found in the “knowledge panel,” a sidebar widget that presents further, more immediate information.

dcnf-logo

The feature has had problems before, specifically when an embedded fact-check feature tried to erroneously pin specious claims on articles written by The Daily Caller.

Google eventually suspended the fact-check project after The Daily Caller News Foundation investigated and pressed further.

The most recent misattribution was first reported on by Vice News. Other ideologies listed besides Nazism, according to a screenshot obtained by Vice’s Alex Thompson, include “Conservatism, Market Liberalism, Fiscal conservatism, and Green conservatism.”

Many, especially those on the right, will suspect that it may have been done by a rogue Google employee or inadvertently through a flawed algorithm.

Google, however, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that it’s because sometimes “people vandalize public information sources, like Wikipedia, which can impact the information that appears in search.”

Wikipedia is for the most part open-source, meaning that almost anyone with only limited verification can add, amend, and delete information.

We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that’s what happened here,” a Google spokeswoman said.

Nevertheless, it comes at an inopportune time for the subject as California primaries are less than a week way. It’s not clear how long the tag was up for, but absentee ballots have been casted for some time ahead of the elections.

The listing caught the attention, particularly the ire of many, of course, who are Republican or on that end of the political spectrum.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, for example, took notice and equated it to an apparent bias.

The listing has since been removed, but how much damage it may have done is not clear. Google says it was only up for a short period of time.

This would have been fixed systematically once we processed the removal from Wikipedia,” the company representative concluded. “But when we noticed the vandalism we worked quickly to accelerate this process to remove the erroneous information.”

COLUMN BY

Eric Lieberman

Eric Lieberman is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by Charles Platiau/Reuters/Newscom.

3 Million People Have Found Jobs Since Trump Took Office

The good economic news just keeps rolling in.

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a positive May jobs report, announcing the U.S. economy added 223,000 jobs and the unemployment rate reached its lowest level since 2000, dipping to 3.8 percent.

While this report shatters expert predictions by nearly 30,000 jobs and continues to show signs of a strong economy, it also makes clear that as people continue to leave the workforce, employers will need to step up their game in order to attract workers to fill open positions.

The strong jobs report shows that a record number of Americans are employed, nearly 3 million people have found a job since President Donald Trump took office, and over the past 12 months we have averaged 191,000 new jobs per month.

In addition to this, African-American unemployment has fallen dramatically from 7.8 percent when Trump took office to 6.6 percent in April, and now to 5.9 percent. This represents a record low.

In addition, Hispanics continue to experience near historic lows in unemployment, reaching 4.9 percent. The unemployment rate for women, now at 3.6 percent, is also at its lowest point in decades.

This brings the unemployment rate down 0.5 percent over the last year, unemployment down by 772,000, and long-term unemployment down by half a million.

The top gains in the report are in retail trade (+31,000 jobs), health care (+29,000 jobs), construction (+25,000 jobs), manufacturing (+18,000 jobs), and mining (+6,000 jobs).

A year and a half into his presidency, Trump continues to add jobs to key sectors he targeted during his campaign. Since he was elected, the U.S. has added 322,000 manufacturing jobs and has reversed the trend of losing mining jobs, adding 91,000 jobs since November of 2016.

On a more troubling note, the labor force participation rate (the number of people who could be working, but choose not to) ticked down a 10th of a percentage point to 62.7 percent. This shows that the labor market is tightening. In fact, the number of people counted not in the labor force reached a record high of nearly 96 million people.

With more and more staying out of the workforce, employers have been steadily raising employee pay. In May, average hourly earnings for all private-sector employees rose by 8 cents, totaling a 71-cent increase over the year. This is the largest 12-month increase since 2009.

What does this mean? To fill open jobs and continue growing the economy, employers need to make work more appealing. How? Pay more and offer more.

One example of this can be seen in Walmart’s recent decision to increase pay, add maternity and paternal leave benefits, and introduce a college tuition program. To attract and keep talent, companies like Walmart will have to offer better and better deals to workers.

Those better deals are made all the more feasible when the government implements pro-growth policies, like the recent tax reform and regulatory reductions. Businesses now have more money and flexibility to be creative in how they attract and maintain their workers.

To date, over 4 million Americans have received a pay raise and/or a bonus because of tax reform. This is not just employers being altruistic, it’s a market-driven response to a need to attract and maintain workers—enabled by the government taking less money away from businesses.

One thing is certain: When businesses have more, they can and will do more. While there are some challenging aspects to the latest jobs report, the overarching theme shows that pro-growth policies are giving employers the flexibility they need to innovate and solve problems.

Let’s keep the momentum going.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Timothy Doescher

Timothy Doescher is associate director of coalition relations at The Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Economic Freedom.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

Shareholders Grill Zuckerberg at Meeting Over Alleged Liberal Bias

Shareholders peppered Facebook’s top executives during an official gathering Thursday with questions, complaints, and protests after the company’s past year has been littered with scandal and backlash.

One investor told Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to lead less like Vladimir Putin and more like George Washington so Facebook doesn’t become a “corporate dictatorship,” according to Bloomberg.

dcnf-logo

Another said the alleged mismanagement of data evoked a human rights violation. One woman was kicked out for constant interruptions in the very beginning of it all. And a plane flew over the premises in Menlo Park, California, dragging the message “You Broke Democracy,” along with an ad from an anti-monopoly activist group, reported Bloomberg.

“A lot has happened since last year when we were here … We didn’t do enough to be proactive about how people can abuse these tools,” Zuckerberg said, adding that the company is doing more to try to protect elections from interference and the social media platform from bots.

“We’re also very focused on being more transparent,” Zuckerberg said, while alluding to the multiple announcements and disclosures the company has made in areas like content moderation.

Zuckerberg was challenged on that exact topic, specifically if there is a bias among leadership or general staff based on ideology and if that affects what content is ultimately allowed on the site used by billions.

Citing apparent examples of an ideological bent, like former Facebook workers saying they constantly restrained news stories of interest to conservatives in the trending news section, Justin Danhof of the Free Enterprise Project urged Zuckerberg to consider fostering more diversity of viewpoint.

“It’s really important to me and to the company that Facebook and our systems are platforms for all different ideas,” Zuckerberg said. “And I noted that there are a number of concerns about that kind of bias. Silicon Valley generally is a very left-leaning place, without knowing or asking specific people at Facebook for their views, I think that’s a reasonable assumption.”

Zuckerberg conceded it’s certainly more likely that many employees within the Silicon Valley headquarters hold liberal viewpoints, but that content moderation is done by people from around the world where there is a more varied outlook on life and politics.

“We have very strict guidelines on how these policies need to be enforced, so if people aren’t doing what the guidelines say, they’re not going to be able continue doing that job,” he continued. “We’re very serious about that.”

Another area of concern broached during the reportedly tense meeting was Facebook’s impact on the local community, a highly strained point of contention in recent weeks as protesters complained the city government cares more about big tech than its own people.

Toward the end of the meeting, according to Bloomberg, after being pressed as to why the company always comes off as defensive, Zuckerberg admitted that while he doesn’t agree with all of the negative news coverage, “some of it is very fair.”

COLUMN BY

Eric Lieberman

Eric Lieberman is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by ulien Mattia/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom.

Farmer settles $2 million lawsuit against high-flying Green realtors

After a decade of litigation involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees, Virginia farmer Martha Boneta has reached a settlement in her $2 million lawsuit against a husband-and-wife team of realtors whom she accused of colluding with an environmental group to drive her off her land.

While the terms of the settlement cannot be disclosed, Boneta is pleased with the outcome of her ordeal. “Justice has been served,” Boneta said triumphantly. “But no American should have to endure ten years of torment. No amount of money can ever make up for the suffering my family and I have had to go through.”

Boneta is the owner of a 64-acre farm located in Fauquier County, Va., about 50 miles west of Washington, D.C. Nestled on the edge of the picturesque Blue Ridge Mountains, Liberty Farm, as her property is known, has been painstakingly restored by Boneta, whose family purchased it in 2006. In addition to producing a variety of crops, the property serves as an animal-rescue farm, providing a home for sheep, goats, alpacas, emus, llamas, and other animals.

But casting a dark shadow over Liberty Farm have been efforts by well-connected people who, she believes, coveted her land. In her lawsuit against Phil and Patricia Thomas, Boneta accused the pair of malicious interference in her business, relentless harassment, and a host of other disturbing actions. Phil Thomas is owner of Thomas & Talbot Real Estate in high-end Middleburg, Va.; Patricia Thomas is principal broker with the firm and an attorney licensed to practice in the Old Dominion.

Targeting her Mortgage

Court records in Fauquier County show that the realtors colluded with an environmental group and government officials to purchase the farmer’s mortgage and otherwise meddle with her mortgage, including contacting the lender several times demanding that it sell her mortgage to the realtors. Court records also show that the realtors contacted various government agencies demanding that they investigate Boneta for such activities as carving pumpkins on her farm, hosting hay rides, and allowing visitors to pick their own vegetables. Records also reveal that Patricia Thomas used her law firm’s letterhead in letters to government officials urging them to take action against Boneta.

To avoid her communications from coming to light under the Freedom of Information Act, Thomas, court records show, sent packages with documents she obtained using her Virginia realtor license to the residences of government officials. These documents included Boneta’s banking records.

In one bizarre incident, court records show that Patricia Thomas called 911 one winter day claiming that Boneta’s cattle were freezing, requiring authorities to spend taxpayer funds to send inspector to her farm, only to find that the animals were in good care. More details on the harassment of Boneta can be found here.

Such was the demonization of Boneta that she was forced to shut down her farm in 2012. But public outrage over her mistreatment led in 2014 to enactment of legislation – known as the “Boneta Bill” — in the Virginia General Assembly that provided additional protection to farmers and enabled her farm to reopen.

Boneta has also filed suit against the Warrenton, Va.-based Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), in which she accuses the group of colluding the Thomases and of abusing its oversight of a conservation easement the PEC holds on her farm. That suit is still pending, and the future of the PEC’s oversight of the conservation easement remains in doubt.

“Fight for the American Dream”

What is not in doubt is that, in coming out swinging against the Thomases and the PEC, Martha Boneta has shown that the little guy or gal can fight back and win. Thanks to the example she has set, Boneta was named as one of the nation’s most amazing women by Country Women magazine. Two film documentaries – “Farming in Fear” and “Unsung Hero” have been made about her struggle to hold on to her farm.

“No matter how long it takes, stand you ground, and justice will be served,” she says. “When the bad guys try to steal your land and everything you have worked for your entire life, dig in your heels and fight for the American Dream.”

About the Author: 

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

RELATED ARTICLE: Neighbors, Farmer Settle Pitched Lawsuit Over Green Groups and Her Property Rights

Megyn Kelly Points Out Hypocrisy After Samantha Bee’s ‘Disgusting’ Remarks About Ivanka Trump

Megyn Kelly went off on Samantha Bee and called the comedian’s comments about Ivanka Trump “disgusting” on Thursday.

The host of NBC’s “Megyn Kelly Today” fired back at the star of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” after Bee referred to Trump as a “feckless c—” during an episode of her show on TBS Wednesday evening. Kelly pointed out the hypocrisy of networks looking the other way at Bee’s comments while condemning Roseanne Barr for her racist tweetstorm that included referring to former President Barack Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett as an “ape,” CNN reported.

dcnf-logo

“This is disgusting. How is this acceptable? And how are we expected to take any of these publications seriously if they gleefully repost something like this at the same time they (rightfully) condemn ? You know the saying Love is Love? Well Hate is Hate,” Kelly tweeted.

Bee’s controversial remarks were in regards to President Donald Trump’s policies regarding illegal immigrants.

“You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child but let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices you feckless c—,” Bee said, according to Newsweek. “He listens to you. Put on something tight and low cut and tell your father to f—ing stop it.”

The reboot of “Roseanne” was canceled by ABC Tuesday in regards to Barr’s comments.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Gabrielle Okun

Gabrielle Okun

Gabrielle Okun is a news reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @gabrielle_okun.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image of Samantha Bee is by JC Olivera/Sipa USA/Newscom.

San Diego Parents Pulling Their Kids From School Over Inappropriate Sex-Ed Curriculum

“We’re going to ask them to suspend this new curriculum because it’s not a curriculum for the adolescent brain, it’s an adult curriculum,” mom Angela Beaver says about a sex-ed curriculum in San Diego.

San Diego parents pulled their kids from school and rallied outside the district’s headquarters Tuesday, expressing anger and frustration over a sex-ed curriculum they allege is completely inappropriate for their young children.

The sixth grade curriculum includes lessons on gender identity, birth control, the stages of sex, STDs, HIV, and pregnancy. Parents are calling the material “too much, too soon” and age-inappropriate while San Diego officials defend the curriculum by arguing that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the lesson plans, CBS News 8 reported.

dcnf-logo

“We’re going to ask them to suspend this new curriculum because it’s not a curriculum for the adolescent brain, it’s an adult curriculum,” mom Angela Beaver told CBS 8 News.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

San Diego parents also loudly rallied in February, asking the district to change its sex-ed curriculum to make it age-appropriate, but the district board did not acquiesce. Parents also began an online petition asking the school district to abandon the curriculum.

“This is absolutely appropriate for our students,” said Isabella McNeil from the San Diego Unified School District, maintaining that the parents are getting upset over material that should in fact be taught to young students.

San Diego parents can opt their child out of the sex-ed curriculum if they choose, but no substitute curriculum will be provided.

Fort Worth schools have also been reeling after a sex-ed lesson for sixth-graders entailed gender transitions and sexual fluidity, according to the Star-Telegram.

Sex-ed programs in other states have also been causing chaos. A California school district told parents in February they can’t opt their kids out of a new sex education course covering abortion, homosexuality, and transgender issues. Despite California’s 2015 Healthy Youth Act, which lets parents opt their children out of sex-ed classes, the Orange County Board of Education decided parents don’t have that right.

Delaware is considering adopting a policy allowing young school students to choose whatever name, gender, or race they want under a veil of school protection mandating the parents not be informed of these decisions unless the student explicitly wishes the parent be included.

COLUMN BY

Grace Carr

@gbcarr24

Grace Carr is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by dolgachov/Getty Images.

Starbucks on Shaky Grounds with Planned Parenthood

Your tax dollars aren’t the only thing supporting Planned Parenthood — proceeds from your daily coffee may be too! By now, Starbucks’s grande agenda on social issues isn’t a surprise to anyone, except maybe its CEO. Yesterday, in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Kevin Johnson seemed completely oblivious to Starbucks’s ongoing relationship with the abortion giant through its matching gift program.

For Johnson, it’s been a rocky few months at the head of one of America’s biggest brands. After an embarrassing scandal in Philadelphia, when a local employee had two African Americans arrested for sitting in their shop, the damage control was in full swing. Starbucks announced it was closing its 8,000 stores to have a “racial-bias education day” for its army of employees. But, our friend Alveda King says the company will have to do a lot more than that to end Starbucks’s bigotry. In an op-ed that’s gone viral, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. insists racism has been part of the company’s corporate identity long before the PR nightmare in April. She writes,

“Through its corporate donations, Starbucks contributes one of the most racist organizations in our nation’s history. Planned Parenthood, the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S., performs more than 300,000 terminations each year. Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion facilities, and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they have more than 35 percent of the abortions.”

Of course, conservatives have known about Starbucks’s ultra-liberal ties dating back to 2012, when then-CEO Howard Schultz told shareholders that redefining marriage really is “core to the Starbucks brand.” The company went on to sign a string of legal briefs for same-sex marriage, arguing at one point that customers who didn’t like it could take their business elsewhere. Some did. Others broke their Starbucks habit two years ago when 2nd Vote released a list of more than three dozen companies who’ve been contributing to Planned Parenthood — either directly or through an employee matching gift program. Apart from the more than half-billion dollar haul from U.S. taxpayers, the group was raking in some hefty financial support from household names like Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss, Microsoft, Nike, Pepsi, Tostitos, and more.

After intense public pressure, at least five of those brands dropped their partnership: AT&T, Coca-Cola, Ford, Macy’s, and Xerox. Starbucks, one of the most politically liberal companies on the market, refused — a fact obviously lost on CEO Kevin Johnson. Three times on Tuesday, he denied any knowledge of the program in his interview with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

Bartiromo: “I don’t know if you saw Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece op-ed in the Washington Examiner. And she said, ‘If Starbucks wants to end racism it will stop funding Planned Parenthood.’ Are you going to stop funding Planned Parenthood?”

Johnson: “Well I am not aware that we, we do fund Planned Parenthood. So. I haven’t read the op-ed and I can’t comment on that.”

Bartiromo: “OK.”

Johnson: “But, I am not aware that we do that.”

Bartiromo: “Well, Alveda King says [so]…

Johnson: “Well, I am not aware of it.”

A few hours later, Starbucks corporate office released a statement admitting that there was, in fact, a link. “Starbucks is listed as a donor of an organization because the Starbucks ‘Partner Match’ program provides matched cash awards for contributions made by Starbucks partners (employees). Every fiscal year, funds are available to each partner to request in support of personal financial donations or individual community service efforts.”

Whether Johnson knew or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what he does with the information now. Planned Parenthood is an organization under federal investigation by the FBI. If Starbucks wants to continue lining the organization’s pockets after the allegations that they traffic in baby body parts, that’s their choice. But know this: it won’t take long for Starbucks to lose bucks. Lining the pockets of the radical Left isn’t good for business. Just ask the NFLESPNTargetLands EndKellogg’sJ.C. Penney, and others.

If Starbucks cares about racial bias, prove it. “Stop funding Planned Parenthood’s house of horrors,” Alveda insists. “[I]f you’re really serious about eliminating racism, you will acknowledge that black people, and indeed all human beings, are of one blood and one human race — born and unborn. Racism and abortion are crimes against humanity.”

Give Kevin Johnson and team a helpful push. Call (800) 782-7282, email, or tweet them @Starbucks and ask them to stop sweetening the pot for America’s biggest abortion business.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood’s War on (Underage) Women

Home Is Where the Classroom Is…