SCHOOL INDOCTRINATION: HOW CUBANS AVOIDED IT

To gaze idly at a crime is to commit it.” – José Martí.


AUTHOR’s COMMENT:

“Common Core” is the same educational system the communist regime of Fidel Castro imposed in Cuba in the early 1960s.  It is the norm in all totalitarian communist regimes.  Each child will have a file from birth to death with all his information, including his conduct, his friends and his parents.  Based on that information depends what he would be studying, what kind of job he will be assigned, where he will be allowed to live and what food and clothes he will be allowed to have.  To avoid that situation, Cuban desperate parents did the unthinkable and sent 14,048 unaccompanied children to the U.S. between 1960 and October 1962.  It was known as Operation Peter Pan.  Most Americans have not been told about it. 

According to the Code of Youth of the Cuban Communist Constitution, only the state have the right to educate the children.  Parents do not have any input at all and they can be sent to jail if they teach their children something that contradict the state dogma.


Soon after Castro’s Marxist Communist-Socialist type government took hold of Cuba in 1959, it became clear that Cuban parents where losing the right to make decisions about educating and raising their children.

Their main concern was the political indoctrination tenor of the new curriculum as is happening in the U.S. now in 2021.

Early on, the final signs were when Castro sent his 12-year-old son “Fidelito” to be educated in the Soviet Union, The international Boy Scouts were outlawed and converted into the Soviet-style “Young Communist Pioneers” for elementary school children and the “Young Communist Association” for teenagers. Cuban parent’s fears were confirmed.

All private schools were targeted and soon confiscated by Castro’s government. And many children were sent to distant places on the island to be indoctrinated.

Thus began the destruction of the Cuban family.

Some parents became fearful of their own children and didn’t talk openly in their homes worried of being denounced to the government as the indoctrination demanded. The future looked bleak for the very close Cuban families.

As painful and unthinkable as it was, many parents made the decision to send their children to be educated in the U.S. That was the beginning of a clandestine operation with the cooperation of the U.S. government and Catholic Charities.

In October 1960, the first unaccompanied child arrived in Miami. It had to be done this way because Castro didn’t allow family members to leave his island together. Most parents they thought they would be able to leave Cuba soon to reunite with their children.

In the U.S. the children were sent to live with relatives, foster parents or to orphanages. From 1960 to October 22, 1962, 14,048 unaccompanied children between 6 and 18 years old were able to leave Cuba under “Operation Peter Pan”.

Many children were eventually reunited with their parents but others never saw them again because many were jailed or died in Cuba.

This clandestine operation was the biggest exodus of unaccompanied children in the Western Hemisphere.

Some of these children ended up on the opposite side from their freedom and American-loving parents after passing through the educational system in the U.S., increasingly controlled by Marxist professors and infiltrators since the 1960s.

Of course now the situation has changed in the U.S. and in today’s world there is no place to go to escape indoctrination. It has to be stopped before more harm is done to the new generation.

COLUMN BY

 Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton, 2021

©Agustin Blazquez. All rights reserved.


INDOCTRINATION OF CHILDREN  IN CUBA AND OPERATION PETER PAN

Common Core” is the same educational system the communist regime of Fidel Castro imposed in Cuba in the early 1960s.  It is the norm in all totalitarian communist regimes.  Each child will have a file from birth to death with all his information, including his conduct, his friends and his parents.  Based on that information depends what he would be studying, what kind of job he will be assigned, where he will be allowed to live and what food and clothes he will be allowed to have.  To avoid that situation, Cuban desperate parents did the unthinkable and sent 14,048 unaccompanied children to the U.S. between 1960 and October 1962.  It was known as Operation Peter Pan.  Most Americans have not been told about it. 

Cuban Kids from the 60s Exodus

The Largest Exodus of Children in the Western Hemisphere

Of the thousands of stories of the Cuban exodus, this one must be told.  It’s the story of the biggest exodus of children ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere, but is largely unknown.  From December 26, 1960 through October 22, 1962, 14,048 unaccompanied children between 6 and 18 years old left Cuba for the US.  There were many valiant and dedicated people in Cuba and in the US working for the success of this secret operation.  It was coded:  Operation Peter Pan.

In the 1930s, 7,482 Jewish children were smuggled out of Nazi Germany to England and other countries and in the communist take over of Spain that lead to a civil war, thousands of children were evacuated to France, Belgium and England.  When the communists in Spain were heading for defeat, it is said that 5,000 children were sent to the Soviet Union.  In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, about 1,000 British children were sent to the US for safety.  And at the end of the war, about 5,000 orphans were brought from Europe to the US for adoption.

Before Castro, people used to immigrate to Cuba.  But after Castro, the biggest exodus in this hemisphere began.  The first to arrive into the US in January 1959 came with their money and belongings but later, as Castro added  more and more restrictions, people were forced to leave with nothing.  This created a terrible burden on the relatives and friends who arrived earlier and were supporting and helping the newcomers.  Later, the burden fell to private charities and the US government.  By 1960 some 4,000 had arrived and by December 1961, 12,000 with 200 arriving in Miami each day.  By 1971, 261,000 were established in Miami and almost as many elsewhere in the US.  During the 1980 Mariél exodus 125,000 left but 2 million more who requested to leave were stranded in Cuba when that door was closed.  In 1997 there are 2 to 3 million Cuban exiles all over the world and their numbers would have been greater if leaving Cuba had been easier.

In opposition to general beliefs resulting from 38 years of Castro’s propaganda echoed by the press and the liberal establishment, Castro’s revolution affected Cubans from all walks of life and the brutality of his repression was felt since January 1959.  From the beginning, when people realized that he was moving toward a communist dictatorship, the opposition began, even from the people who previously fought at his side against Batista.  Many Cubans, as the situation worsened during 1959 and 1960, thought that Castro would be overthrown.  As his control grew and his cronies became entrenched in civilian and government positions, Cubans became concerned that unseating Castro would lead to a bloody civil war, as in Spain in the 1930s.

On May 1, 1960, Castro launched his slogan “Cuba sí, Yankees no!” and ordered the creation of communist indoctrination schools while publicly denying he was a communist.  In July, he began to confiscate properties owned by Americans, Spaniards and Jews.  In October, he created the neighborhood committees (fashioned after 1930s Nazi Germany) to spy on and control each city block.

The radicalism of Castro’s revolution spread toward the educational field raising parents’ concern.  Circulating rumors that he was planning to confiscate the over 1,000 secular and religious private schools (which did materialize later) made parents fearful about their children’s future.  Some private schools began closing – temporarily, they thought – because of the increasing pressures from Castro’s regime to change to Marxist textbooks to indoctrinate the children.  After private schools closed, many parents kept their children home instead of sending them to public schools where communist indoctrination had already begun.

Many Cuban parents remembered the stories of the end of the civil war in Spain where 5,000 children were sent to the Soviet Union for indoctrination and others were held as hostages.  They were fearful that the same thing would happen in Cuba.  Many parents did not want to leave Cuba because they thought that Castro would be overthrown in a matter of months.  Or because they could not abandon an old or sick family member, or a spouse or a brother who had become a political prisoner.  Others because they were involved in the anti-Castro movement.  They couldn’t leave but they wanted their children to be saved.

In the fall of 1960, rumors circulating in Cuba and in Miami exile circles added to the fears of parents in Cuba.  The main concern was the prospect of losing the “patria potestad,” which meant that parents would lose the right to make the decisions about raising their children.  Instead, the government would decide such things as where each child would live, each child’s school and curriculum, etc.  This did materialize later on.

The departure from Cuba of Castro’s 12-year-old son, Fidelito, to be educated in the Soviet Union seemed to confirm this rumor.  Then, the creation of the Young Communist Pioneers – replacing the Boy Scouts – and the Association of Young Communists added panic to the situation.  Some of the children already absorbed into these mass organizations began to show the effects of the indoctrination:  parroting Castro’s slogans and using communist jargon, and becoming informants.  In some instances, parents became fearful of their own children and self-censored what they said in front of them to avoid being denounced to the authorities.  The future didn’t look promising for families under Castro. Painful as it was, many parents thought that it was time to get their children out of Cuba even if they had to leave unescorted.

In October 1960, the first unaccompanied Cuban child arrived in Miami.  He was sent by his parents who thought that their relatives and friends would take care of him temporarily until Castro was overthrown.  They had no way of knowing that their relatives were almost destitute.  Since no one was willing or able to take responsibility for his welfare, the 15-year-old boy was being passed from one family to another on a daily basis.  This psychologically affected the boy.  He was scared and hungry and had lost 20 pounds when someone took him to the Catholic Welfare Bureau in Miami on November 15, 1960.  The man who brought him in pleaded for a foster home or a boarding school for the boy.  The boy’s name was Pedro (Peter).  Later on, the organized effort to get the unaccompanied children safely out of Cuba and properly cared for in the US would be named for him:  Operation Peter Pan.

Father Bryan O. Walsh, Executive Director of the bureau, made temporary arrangements for the care of Pedro.  Father Walsh, born in Port Arlington, Ireland in 1930, was ordained as a priest in St. Augustine, Florida in 1954.  He was a dedicated and compassionate Spanish-speaking priest who had been in Miami since 1957.  He was aware of the impending influx of Cuban children through a sister agency, the Hispanic Catholic Center in Miami.  He realized that Pedro was the first child of many that would come as the situation deteriorated in Cuba.  And he sought federal help to cope with the emergency situation that was developing.

Father Walsh also turned to the Welfare Planning Council for help.  They arranged a meeting for the third week of November 1960 with representatives of the Dade County Welfare Department, Florida State Department of Public Welfare, Florida Children’s Home Society, Children Service Bureau and Jewish Family and Children’s Service.  President Eisenhower, aware of the emergency refugee situation in Miami, had just appointed Mr. Tracy Voorhees to look into the matter.  As a result of the meeting at the offices of the Welfare Planning Council and with the recommendation of Mr. Voorhees, one million dollars was allocated by the Eisenhower administration on December 2, 1960.

Also in November 1960, a Cuban mother flew to Key West bringing her two children.  She feared that because of her and her husband’s anti-Castro activities, her children would be sent to the Soviet Union.  Since she did not have family or friends in the US, she brought her two children to the Key West Juvenile Court.  She begged the Judge of that court to find a home for them.  The Judge assumed jurisdiction and placed her children in foster care.  The mother returned to Cuba to join her husband in the fight against Castro.  In addition to Pedro, now there were two more children, without their parents but safe from Castro.

James Baker was the Headmaster of Ruston Academy, an American school in Havana, catering to US residents on the island and upper middle class Cuban families.  As a resident of Cuba, Mr. Baker was very well aware of the tenor of Castro’s regime and the increasing opposition.  Cuban parents concerned about the communist indoctrination and welfare of their children approached him for a way out for their sons and daughters.  In November 1960, he sent one of his teachers to Miami and Washington to look over the situation.  As a result of that visit, they decided to open a boarding school in Miami to help the fearful parents get their children out.

For the purpose of finding a suitable building for the boarding school, Mr. Baker traveled to Miami in the second week of December 1960.  In Miami, he heard about Father Walsh and the plans of the Catholic Welfare Bureau to provide care for unaccompanied Cuban refugee children.  On December 12 he paid a visit to Father Walsh, who pointed out to him that the boarding school would be only a partial solution and that the legalities of custody would eventually surface if separation from their parents became lengthy.  Father Walsh thought that the best way to handle the situation was through a social agency, and said, “specially the younger ones, belonged in foster families, not institutions.”  Also, there was the concern that Jewish and Protestant children would be coming and assurance must be made to their parents that their religious heritage would be respected.

Mr. Baker determined that the best way to handle the situation was to work together with Father Walsh.  He estimated that 200 unaccompanied children would be coming.  He would arrange to get them out of Cuba and Father Walsh would be responsible for receiving them upon arrival at Miami’s airport and provide them with proper care until Castro was overthrown and they could return to their parents in Cuba.  Thus the yet to be named Operation Peter Pan was created.

To help Mr. Baker raise the funds for this operation were a group of members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Havana whose properties were confiscated by Castro.  Among them were Kenneth Campbell and Bob O’Farrell of Esso Standard Oil Company and Richard Colligan of Freeport Sulfur Company.  They were in Miami in a wait and see mode watching the developments in Cuba.  Judging by Castro’s brutality and violations of human rights and the increasing opposition, they agreed that it was a temporary situation until Cubans would gain the democratic change they wanted.  These businessmen wanted to help spare the Cuban children from a possibly bloody struggle.

Mr. Baker returned to Havana on December 13 and the group of businessmen began to obtain donations from US companies (and one British, the Shell Oil Company, which had done business previously in Cuba).  But, they had to prevent Castro from tracing the sources of the funds, otherwise he might stop the operation.  The first donations were paid to the Catholic Welfare Bureau.  They in turn issued checks to a series of Americans living in Miami, who in turn, issued personal checks for the airfare of the children via the W. Henry Smith Agency, a travel agency in Havana, owned and operated by H. Gilbert Smith.  This complicated process was necessary because, in order to get US currency, Castro had already forbidden the purchase of airline tickets using Cuban pesos.

Meanwhile, the US Embassy in Havana issued student visas to each child.  The Catholic Welfare Bureau gave a letter to Mr. Baker stating that they would be responsible for any child referred by him.  To keep Castro out of it, all communications concerning this operation were handled via the US diplomatic pouch, thanks to the cooperation of Mr. Culver Gidden of the US State Department Reception Center in Miami and the Charge d’Affairs at the US Embassy in Havana, Mr. Daniel Braddock.

On December 15, 1960, several of the American businessmen in Miami took a letter from Mr. Baker in Havana that had arrived that morning in the diplomatic pouch, to Father Walsh.  The letter contained a list of the first 125 children that would be coming.  Immediately he looked for housing for the children.  The County Welfare Department had a group of vacant buildings known as the Kendall complex that had been used to house delinquent children and offered them to Father Walsh.  There, 60 children could be housed but 125 were coming!  Father Walsh found that the St. Joseph Villa, a small group home for children run by nuns, had nine empty beds.  He found that the Assumption Academy, a private girls’ boarding school, also run by nuns, would be empty because of the Christmas holidays and they could temporarily accommodate 200!  He stopped by and asked the Mother Superior for her help.  She agreed with the condition that the children had to leave by January 6, 1961.

On December 24, 1960, Father Walsh received the news that the first children would be arriving in Miami the next day.  On Christmas Day, the only person he was able to locate to go with him to the airport to receive the children was Mrs. Louis Cooper, a Catholic Welfare Bureau social worker.  There were two flights from Cuba that afternoon:  Pan American’s 422 and National’s 452.  To their surprise, no children came on flight 422.  They waited with anxiety for the second flight.  Flight 452 finally arrived also with no children.  They were disappointed and concerned.  What had gone wrong?  What had happened to the children?

As Father Walsh anxiously awaited the flow of what would be the largest influx of unaccompanied refugee children in history, the situation that was causing the influx worsened.  Fidel Castro’s January 1960 death penalty decree for joining or even helping the revolt against him weighed heavily on everyone’s mind.  Masses were apprehended and thrown in jail without trial and summary executions were rampant.  The neighborhood committees spying on each city block were terrorizing people.  Peasants were in open revolt and fighting in the Escambray Mountains.  Students and workers were joining them and other anti-Castro rebels all over the island.  Rebel groups in the countryside were as close as 36 kilometers from Havana.  The organized anti-Castro resistance in Havana and other cities was growing.  The number of people involved in the resistance against Castro was to far exceed the number that had struggled against Batista.  The brutality of Castro’s repression was something never experienced before.  Castro was waging an all out war against the will of his people.

Many parents were panicking at the approaching second anniversary of Castro’s revolution, January 1st, 1961, with the prospect that children may no longer be allowed to leave Cuba.  The government was taking control of more and more aspects of daily life – including the raising of children.  A desperate plan to get them out was under way.  In Havana, James Baker and others willing to take great risks formed a clandestine network.  In Miami, on safer ground, Father Walsh and other dedicated Americans, prepared to accept an awesome responsibility.  The goal was to create the means to get as many children as possible out before January 1st, 1961.

December 26, 1960:  Sixto, 12 and Vivian, 14, brother and sister, the first two children to leave in this underground operation were in Havana’s José Martí International Airport. As required in Castro’s Cuba, they would wait for hours to find out if they would actually be permitted to board their plane to freedom.  Unexpectedly, their mother was allowed in the waiting room with them, a room that came to be known as “the fish tank,” because it normally separated with glass those hoping to leave from their relatives watching from the outside.

Their father, watching in silence, felt deep sorrow and fear on the other side of the cold glass.  He felt impotent in the situation that made him and his wife take a drastic step, not knowing when they would see their children again.  He consoled himself by thinking that at least in Miami his children would be safe from the unpredictable nightmare of Castro’s regime.

For Sixto and Vivian, this was the first time they were going to be separated from their parents.  They were going to the unknown; to a country with a different language, culture and environment.  They were afraid and sad to be leaving their parents, relatives and friends, their familiar home and their country, but as youngsters, they also felt a sense of adventure.  Each one was carrying a small suitcase with the few belongings that Castro’s regime allowed them to take, and of course, no money.  Before, with their parents around, that was not a problem.  But now they were on their own, not knowing who was going to take care of them.

Because their mother was permitted to wait with them, the situation was not as intimidating for them as it was for the others inside “the fish tank.”  Castro’s political police at the airport interrogated the other passengers.  They had to be very careful with their answers and appear calm and confident at all times.  The most minimal suspicious behavior or inconsistency could prevent their departure.  Their suitcases would be carefully checked and anything deemed to be of value would be confiscated “for the revolution,” meaning it would be kept by the inspectors.  This was what Cuba had become since Castro, and until the very last second on that island, while they have you under their control, you are living in uncertainty and fear.  Finally, after four agonizing hours inside “the fish tank,” the police shouted that children were allowed to board the plane.  A last hug and kiss from their mother and a last look at their father on the other side of the glass, a last silent goodbye.

On the “other side of the world” in Miami, Mrs. Cooper went again to the airport to continue the vigil to see if any children would arrive today.  The wait was excruciating.  The first flight from Havana arrived without children.  At about 7:30 pm the second flight arrived.  All the passengers arriving showed an extraordinary sense of relief as they descended and touched the ground in Miami.  Suddenly a boy, holding the hand of a girl emerged and descended the stairs to the tarmac.  There were alone.  They appeared very worried.  There were no relatives or friends waiting for them outside the doors of Customs.  Fear controlled their faces.  “Good God, our children!” exclaimed the relieved Mrs. Cooper.

Sixto and Vivian were very much relieved to see the friendly, smiling face of Mrs. Cooper.  They didn’t know it, but they were the first in a line of 14,048 children that would be arriving during the next 23 months.

Mrs. Cooper took them to St. Joseph’s Villa where they would to live for the next two months until they went to live at the home of their mother’s cousin in Hialeah, Florida.  Their mother came from Cuba five months later and their father about six months after her.  The family was reunited after 11 long months.

The daily vigil for unaccompanied children from Cuba at the Miami airport continued.  Two came on December 28th, six on the 30th and 12 on the 31st.  January 1st, 1961 arrived and Castro did not forbid the exodus of children.  However, he demanded that the US Embassy in Havana reduce its staff from 120 to 15.  This brought a strong reaction from the Eisenhower administration and on January 3, 1961, the US broke diplomatic relations with the Castro regime.  So, the US visas for the coming children would be very difficult.  Father Walsh thought that it was the end of the operation.  No children arrived on January 1st, 2nd or 3rd.  However, four arrived on the 4th!

With the closing of the US Embassy in Havana and the Consulate in Santiago de Cuba, most of the US citizens living in Cuba began to leave.  James Baker, his wife Sybil and their children arrived in Miami on January 5.  Mr. Baker was able to explain in person to the Catholic Welfare Bureau the delays that they were experiencing in getting visas for the children and the increasing number of requests.  Castro’s secret police surrounded the US Embassy while the staff was burning documents – as is customary when closing an embassy.  In the last minutes, the US embassy officials allowed him to stamp 25 extra visas.

Before leaving Cuba, Mr. Baker, with the approval of the State Department, left Miss Penny Powers, a British citizen, in charge of the exodus of the children.  She had been a nurse who was instrumental in the escape of 10,000 Jewish children from Nazi Germany, and years later in Cuba became one of the teachers at Ruston Academy in Havana.

For Father Walsh, Miss Powers and the others involved in this operation, the breaking of relations between the US and Cuba posed an additional challenge, since no more visas for the children could be issued in Havana.  Another source would have to be found in order to get the children out.

Since communication and the free flow of information were among the earliest casualties after Castro, it became very difficult to know what was really going on inside Cuba.  Everything became politically sensitive and a security matter to the regime.  Telephone conversations were monitored and letters were opened by the authorities, so Cubans began communicating by passing information from person to person in a confidential manner.  Everyone became extremely careful, because seemingly anything could bring an accusation of “counterrevolutionary,” or “CIA agent” resulting in jail.  It was known through the grapevine that Castro’s henchmen would select at random from those in jail, who was going to be executed.  Also through this grapevine, desperate Cuban parents learned about the facilities Father Walsh was creating for Cuban children in Miami.  But the problem was, how to obtain the US visa, now that the US Embassy in Havana was closed.

In Miami, Father Walsh continued making arrangements for receiving the estimated 200 children.  James and Sybil Baker, after their arrival from Cuba, were appointed the first houseparents at the newly created Cuban Boys Home at 175 S.E. 15 Road in Miami.  This house was donated by Maurice Ferré, a Puerto Rican industrialist in Miami whose parents were from Cuba.  It was the first home for Cuban teen-aged boys in the city of Miami.  The Bakers made daily trips to the airport to pick up newly arriving children.  They also assigned a Cuban couple, Angel and Nina Carrion, as permanent residents of the house, which eventually became known as “Casa Carrion.”

At the Kendall facility, far from the city, Father Walsh appointed as houseparents, another Cuban couple, Mr. and Mrs. Fernando Pruna.  He also had to hire cooks, janitors, social workers, clerks, typists and a bookkeeper.  James Baker couldn’t forget his friends stranded in Cuba and in coordination with Penny Powers and other trustworthy friends in Havana, a plan was developed with the cooperation of the British government, to get the rest of the children out via Kingston, Jamaica.  The British Embassy in Havana would issue visas to the children.  After the children arrived in Kingston, the US Consul there would give them US visas and they would be able to continue to Miami.  However, the children would need a place to stay in Kingston overnight.

Meanwhile, on January 6, 1961, seven more children arrived at Miami’s airport; two on the 7th and two more on the 8th.  The children were leaving in such a small numbers to minimize suspicions.  On January 8, Father Walsh flew to Washington, D.C., to meet with Frank Auerbach, his contact for the operation at the State Department, to talk about the Jamaica plan.  Although it was Sunday, Mr. Auerbach made arrangements to meet at 2 pm at one of the building’s side doors.

Father Walsh:  “It was a bright, cold winter afternoon, and the streets around the State Department were completely deserted.  Somehow the weather, the day, the time, the happenings of the past weeks all combined to create an atmosphere of intrigue and conspiracy.  Promptly at 2, Mr. Auerbach drove up and we met for the first time.  We entered the building and walked along deserted corridors to the office of Mr. Robert F. Hale, Director of the Visa Office, who was waiting for us.  We spent about three hours discussing the possibility of bringing the children out via Jamaica on the two KLM flights a week among other possibilities.  It was then that I heard for the first time the words ‘visa waiver’.”

At that meeting the possibility that the State Department would grant visa waivers to the children in Cuba, that would allow them to come directly to the US, was discussed.  But consultation with the Justice Department the following Monday morning was necessary.  Father Walsh stayed in his hotel room waiting for word.  On Monday afternoon, the call was received giving the O.K. to both proposals.  So now, the children could leave both ways, coming directly from Havana to Miami and through Jamaica with the visa waiver formula.  The visa waiver applied only to children from 6 to 16.  For those from 16 to 18, names had to be submitted for security clearances.  The operation was on its feet again, for as long as Castro did not discover it.

On January 10, 1960, Father Walsh and Rachel Erwin, his Supervisor of Child Welfare, boarded a flight for Kingston with the list of the coming children to make arrangements for their arrival.  They were met at the airport by Father William A. Connolly, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Kingston who took them to lunch at the Bishop’s house.  At the meeting it was arranged that the boys would stay at St. George College and the girls at Immaculate Conception College.  Father Walsh stayed that evening because next morning he would meet with the US Consul and the managers of Pan American and KLM airlines to secure their cooperation.  On January 11, Father Walsh returned to Miami while Miss Erwin stayed behind to receive the children.  But no children arrived that day in Kingston.

Back in Miami, 50 children were being cared for at three locations:  The Cuban Boys Home, St. Joseph Villa and Kendall.  But no new children were leaving Cuba.  Father Walsh, called Miss Erwin in Kingston.  She said that according to KLM, the first children would arrive on January 17.  However, on Monday, January 16, two children arrived at Miami’s airport.  During this impasse, Father Walsh and Mr. Baker were involved in organizing an education program for the children.  Although everyone thought this was a temporary situation and the children would soon be returning to Cuba when Castro was overthrown, they did not want them to miss their schooling.  Word was sent to Havana to have the children bring their textbooks, if possible.

In Havana, through the grapevine, word of the visa waiver had reached the parents and on January 17 the first seven children were able to leave for Jamaica and on the 18th, two arrived directly from Havana.  In addition to Penny Powers, a clandestine network was established in Cuba for the distribution of the visa waivers.  A group of very dedicated people were risking their lives for the sake of getting these children out to freedom. Among them was the wealthy socialite, Sara del Toro de Odio, Albertina O’Fárril, Teté Pachéz (secretary at the W. Henry Smith Travel Agency in Havana), Gilbert Smith (son of the owner), Adelaida Everhart, Petit Esnart, Laureano Dominguez, Hilda Feo, Emilio Fernandez (Pan American Airlines in Cuba), Pancho Finlay (KLM Airlines in Cuba) and others.  Many of them eventually served time in jail for their “anti-Castro Activities.”  But their incarceration did not stop Operation Peter Pan.  Other people continued their work.

To obtain the visa waiver necessary to send their children to the US, parents had to get to the houses of the people distributing them in Havana.  They had to do so very carefully, due to the increasing surveillance.  There were the dreaded block committees, the network of informants and the secret police.  The people distributing the visas also had to be extremely careful, because the people knocking at their doors could be informants or secret police.  There were enormous risks both ways.  Surviving inside a totalitarian society had become very complicated.

The wealthy Sara del Toro de Odio and her husband Amador had spent time in jail for their prior anti-Batista activities.  They knew Castro personally.  When he took over, they believed and supported his government until they began to realize the communist direction the revolution was taking.  They learned about the summary executions and brutality against the increasing opposition.  They knew Batista’s jails and his treatment of political prisoners from first hand experience.  Castro himself had been treated very well during his 20-month stay at the Isle of Pines Prison.  They were appalled by what was going on now, under Castro.  That wasn’t what they and others had fought for:  democracy.  If there was something that the economically prosperous Cuba didn’t need, it was a totalitarian communist regime.

As they had fought against Batista, Sara and Amador decided to fight against Castro.  But because of Castro’s violent and revengeful nature, they thought it would take a bloody struggle of dimensions never seen before.  They worried that Castro might use their children as hostages and decided to take three of them to safety.  Sara went alone to the US in January 1961 with her son and two daughters.  Before she returned to Cuba to join her husband in the struggle against Castro, she met Father Walsh who gave her visa waivers to distribute in Cuba.  Back in Havana, she and her husband decided to move from their city home to their recreational farm outside the city to be out of sight of the block committees and secret police.

Concerned parents all over the island learned about Sara through the grapevine.  Sara and Amador’s farm was one of the places where the parents could go to get the visa waiver.  Extreme care was necessary to avoid being followed.  The trip was an ordeal for many.  One by one, people from all over the island showed up at the farm.  Some were from poor and far away places who supposedly were the beneficiaries of Castro’s revolution, however, they didn’t want their children indoctrinated.  Many did not have the means to send their children to the US.  In those cases, Sara and Amador provided the US dollars for the trip.

Parents were also knocking at the doors of Bertha and Esther de la Portilla, Laureano Fernandez, Rev. Hernandez, Rev. Maximiliano, Bishop Muller, Serafina Hikel, Beatriz Morton, Israel Padilla, Alicia Thomas and others who also participated at great personal risk.

Through Jamaica and Miami, the number of children arriving was growing and more places were needed to house them.  On Tuesday, January 31, 1961, Father Walsh stressed the need for keeping the operation secret, avoiding all publicity that could jeopardize the children’s safe exit out of Cuba.  The US press was already suspecting what was going on, but in a spirit of cooperation, they did not say anything.  They were the ones who baptized the secret exodus “Operation Peter Pan.”  This name was in honor of the first boy Father Walsh took under his care on November 15, 1960, Pedro (Peter) Menendez.

Father Walsh wrote on February 1, 1961, “As of today 174 children came in (from Cuba).  Of these, 53 have been and are being cared for by relatives and friends, the rest by the Catholic Welfare Bureau except for two by the Jewish Family Service.  In addition, 20 have been sent to the Catholic Children Bureau, in Philadelphia.”  As the numbers grew, children were sent to orphanages and foster homes in 35 states.

The Cuban children were mainly from white middle class families, including some Jewish.  There were also children from black and Chinese families.  The Cuban children, not accustomed to segregation, were shocked by it in Florida.  When black Cuban children were not allowed to enter some places, the others, in a show of solidarity, refused to enter.

The sudden separation from their parents, culture and environment, had a strong effect on many younger children who could not understand why their lives changed so drastically.

On April 17, 1961, the Bay of Pigs invasion took place.  This was the opportunity that the anti-Castro underground resistance movement was waiting for to create a general strike and massive civil disobedience throughout Cuba.  But the long awaited invasion went wrong from the beginning.  First, US officials changed the landing place to a swampy area against the advice of Cubans with expert knowledge of their territory.  Second, President Kennedy reneged on his promise to back up the landing with US air power (waiting and ready to fly).  In the early hours of April 17, Castro ordered the massive detention of 250,000 people suspected of being unsympathetic to his cause, effectively preventing any civilian back up of the invasion.  The detainees were housed in stadiums, theaters and prisons.  Many were executed or remained in prison.

Cubans, after the invasion fiasco, disenchanted with what was perceived as the betrayal of President Kennedy by not helping them to get rid of the communist regime they never wanted, realized that there wasn’t much that they could do alone on that isolated island with a omnipotent leader who would stop at nothing to maintain power.  Kennedy seemed more interested in fighting communism in far away Vietnam than in his own neighborhood.  They also realized that the separation from their children was not going to be temporary, and many started to leave in any way they could in order to be reunited with their children.

My father’s brother and his wife made the “impossible” decision to send their two children to the US.  Their son, Jorge, was 13 and their daughter, Ileana, was 11.  They left on July 8, 1962.  At their arrival in Miami, they were separated.  Jorge was sent to live in a tent in a camp called Matecumbe in Miami.  Ileana was sent to a girls refuge called Florida City.  After a few months, they were adopted by Merlin and Peggy Blair in Pensacola, Florida.  After two years, Jorge was sent to Bay San Luis Catholic Seminary in Mississippi and Ileana went to a Catholic orphanage in Mobile, Alabama.  Later, Jorge was also transferred to an orphanage in Mobile, Alabama.

In Cuba, Sara and Amador were apprehended.  One of their farm workers turned out to be an informant.  They went to jail for anti-Castro activities.  But in spite of the brutality and torture they endured, they never gave the names of the others.  Their properties were confiscated and their farm was converted to a women’s jail were Sara was forced to serve the last six years of her incarceration.  After Amador was freed, they were able to leave for Miami where they reunited with their children.  Amador died some years later.

For 16 months, Operation Peter Pan was proceeding in secret until March 9, 1962.  Father Walsh remembers, “the Cleveland Plain Dealer decided to break the spirit of cooperation and prepared a story for publication.  When all efforts to suppress the story failed, we agreed to a press release giving the basic story but omitting all references to what was being done within Cuba.”

In Cuba, Albertina O’Farril was already in jail with Sara del Toro de Odio.  But after the Bay of Pigs invasion and the massive arrests of April 17, 1961, others began distributing the visa waivers.  During those times Ramón Grau and his sister Polita – relatives of the former constitutionally elected President of Cuba, Ramón Grau San Martin, 1944-48 – became involved in the distribution of visa waivers and the children continued to come.

Then the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted in October 1962, putting the world at the brink of a nuclear holocaust.  With the confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union, the last commercial flight from Havana to Miami departed Cuba on October 22, 1962.  On that flight were the last children of Operation Peter Pan.  There were 50,000 more children with their visa waivers left stranded in Cuba; 14,048 were safely out.

Of that total, 7,464 were cared for by the efforts of the 465 people who worked in this operation at the Catholic Welfare Bureau in Miami.  The children were housed at their facilities in the Miami area and orphanages and foster homes in 35 states.  The rest of the children were living with relatives, friends and with their parents as they were able to leave Cuba.

After the suspension of the direct flights from Cuba, parents began leaving through Spain and Mexico, although the transit visa through Mexico was extremely difficult to obtain.  In some instances bribes had to be paid to Mexican officials by relatives and friends abroad on behalf of the parents.  Their exiled relatives and friends were paying the money for the parents’ trip and stay in the transit country.

In early 1965, Castro’s secret police arrested Ramón Grau.  He was brutally tortured for three months at the infamous Villa Marista, the headquarters of the G2 political police.  He was placed in solitary confinement inside a 6×6 tomb-like cell 12 feet underground full of roaches and rats, where he couldn’t even stand erect.  He was subjected to a variety of psychological tortures in an effort force him to sign a confession.  He never did and was tried for anti-Castro activities and sentenced to death – later commuted to 23 years.  His sister, Polita Grau, who was the director of a women’s anti-Castro underground organization called Rescate (Rescue), also spent long years as a political prisoner.

To reunite the families, President Johnson created the Freedom Flights, which began on December 1, 1965.  The parents of Operation Peter Pan children were given first priority.  Within the first six months of the Freedom Flights, about 5,000 children were reunited with their parents.  These flights lasted until April 1973 and brought 260,561 Cubans to the US.

My uncle’s son and daughter remained in separate orphanages in Mobile, Alabama until their parents were allowed to leave Cuba on the Freedom Flights on May 8, 1966.  They were finally reunited after four years and settled in New Orleans, Louisiana.  Both of my cousins have since married and have children and grandchildren.

For most families, reunification brought forth unexpected difficulties that had to be overcome.  Many, including my cousin Ileana, could not communicate with their parents until they could relearn Spanish.  Others remembered their parents as they looked in Cuba when they were younger and in happier times.  The suffering, and for some, incarceration endured by the parents in Cuba, made some parents appear so much older and different that their own children didn’t recognize them.  Some children denied that they were their real parents.  In other instances, parents found their children so changed by the different culture, that reunification became a long-term trauma.

For some, death of one of the parents, either by natural causes or by being executed during the separation period, made the reunion very painful.  Other parents, because one or both were sent to jail or a concentration camp, were unable to reunite, so their children remained in orphanages or living with relatives or friends.  By 1971, 165 children remained under the care of the Catholic Welfare Bureau’s Cuban Children’s Program.  The last of the Cuban children left in 1976, 26 years later!  It is estimated that because of Operation Peter Pan, 150,000 additional people were able to come to the US.  There are enough stories involved with this exodus to fill many compelling volumes.

Sara del Toro de Odio still lives in Miami.  Albertina O’Farril, after 14 years in jail is in exile in Miami.  Ramón and Polita Grau, after their release from jail also came to Miami.  Penny Powers, now in her eighties, still lives in Cuba and was Knighted by the Queen of England.  James Baker, whose wife, Sybil, died, lives near Daytona Beach.  Father Bryan O. Walsh, 69, now Monsignor, as a result of his experience with the Cuban children, is developing a Children’s Village in Miami, where needy children can live in a family like atmosphere.

The children from Operation Peter Pan have grown up to be doctors, lawyers, technicians, musicians, entertainers, etc.  Among the most well known musicians is Willy Chirino.  He married the popular singer Lisette Alvarez, also a Peter Pan child whose parents were the famous 1950s’ Cuban radio and television performers Olga Chorens and Tony Alvarez.  And singer/songwriter Marisela Verena and musician Carlos Oliva.  Santiago Rodriquez has become internationally known as a classical piano virtuoso and Professor at Maryland University – he was 8 when he came to the US.

Sixto Aquino, the first official Peter Pan child who arrived in Miami on November 26, 1960, obtained an degree in Economics in 1969 from Georgetown University and is Division Chief for the Andean Countries at the Inter-American Development Bank and has two children.  His sister, Vivian, graduated from high school in 1963, went to the University of Maryland, married in 1967 and has three children.  She lives in Miami where she and her husband export software to Latin America.

Every Peter Pan child has an important story to tell. Margarita Prats, now Margarita Lora, who came when she was 8 with her sister Lola, 6 and brothers José, 9 and Benito, 7, has three children and is a Research Medical Technologist at NIH and lives in Maryland, while Lola became a Clinical Medical Technologist and has two children.  Her brother, José, is a Communications Entrepreneur in Virginia with two children.  Benito is an Aerospace Engineer in California with four children.  Family reunions are very important for the Prats family and their parents have a series of photos lined up on the wall of their kitchen to prove it.

Mayda Rodriguez, now Mayda Riopedre, who came at 15 with her sister Lina, was a Research Librarian at the Smithsonian Institution and now lives in Miami.  Her sister, Lina, has two children and is a Restaurant Manager in West Palm Beach.  Psychologist Ana Cristina Gardano, PH.D., who came with her brother Enrique, is in private practice in Chevy Chase, Maryland.  And the list goes on.  There are grown Peter Pan children all over the US.

Since time has healed most of the traumas of the experience, most of the Peter Pan children thank their parents for having the courage to send them to freedom which they now fully enjoy and appreciate.  Would they be able to do the same for their own children?  Perhaps, for some, if the circumstances demanded it.  But not for others, still suffering from the separation trauma.  Some have chosen not to have children, others are very close and protective of them and are glad that their children live with freedom, something that can easily be taken for granted when you haven’t lived in a communist totalitarian society.  In general, they are grateful that Operation Peter Pan gave them the opportunity to fly as Peter did.

© 1997 & 2003 ABIP

Sources:

Monsignor Bryan O. Walsh, CUBAN REFUGEE CHILDREN

Margarita Lora, B.S.

Mayda Riopedre, M.A.

Dr. Ana Cristina Gardano, PH.D.

Santiago Rodriguez

Natalia Rodriguez

Alfonso García

Sixto Aquino

René Blázquez

Ileana Kiefer

Dr. Benito Prats, M.D.

Aleida Duran, INTERVIEW WITH WILLY CHIRINO

Helga Silva, THE CHILDREN OF MARIEL

and other historical and statistical sources

Agustin Blazquez, Producer/director of the documentaries

COVERING CUBA, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation & COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival.

Author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book COVERING AND DISCOVERING and translator with Jaums Sutton of the book by Luis Grave de Peralta Morell THE MAFIA OF HAVANA: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.

For a preview and information on the documentary and books click here: ABIP

Biden Plan Would Sabotage U.S. Economic Competitiveness in One Huge Way, Analysis Finds

That’s not ‘Building Back Better’—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.  


President Biden has heralded his $4.5+ trillion spending proposals and accompanying tax hikes as an investment in “leading the world versus letting it pass us by.” Yet, paradoxically, a new analysis exposes one huge way Biden’s plans would make the US less competitive on the global stage.

Key to financing the spending plans is a proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 26.5 percent. When factoring in state corporate taxes, the US’s average corporate tax rate would reach a whopping 30.9 percent. And according to a new Tax Foundation analysis, this punitive level of business taxation would be the third-highest corporate tax rate among developed countries, outstripped only by Colombia and Portugal.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TAX FOUNDATION INFOGRAPHIC

Why is this a problem?

Well, the US would become a less attractive place for business investment, which is bad news for entrepreneurs, workers, and customers alike. Businesses would understandably be less likely to conduct business in the US when they could go to dozens of other developed countries with lower tax rates. As a result, our economic competitiveness would suffer.

“Returning to near the top of the OECD in corporate tax rates would… disincentivize investment and encourage firms to shift profits and locate elsewhere, resulting in fewer job opportunities for Americans and less tax revenue for the U.S. government,” the analysis explains.

Yikes.

Biden claims his tax-and-spend agenda is meant to reassert America’s dominance. But the costly tax hikes the president seeks would set our economic competitiveness back on the global stage. That’s not “Building Back Better”—it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

WATCHNew Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

Worldview is Central to Determining Views on Abortion

The month of October kicks off “Respect Life Month” in the Catholic Church, and with the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to hear the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case on December 1, Christians across the country have begun praying in earnest for the case that could overturn Roev. Wade. How will Americans react to the possibility of the Court altering the long-standing Roe ruling concerning abortion?

Many Americans wonder why abortion remains such a high-profile issue after all these years. The explanation is simple. Almost 50 years ago, seven appointed—not elected—justices decided that killing unborn babies should be a constitutionally-protected act. Since that time, more than 62 million unborn babies have been killed in our nation.

Rest assured, that fact has not gone unnoticed by the God who knitted together those babies in the wombs of their mothers.

Recent worldview research provides helpful insight into Americans’ views about abortion. The annual American Worldview Inventory undertaken by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University shows that after a half-century of energetic public debate about abortion, the abortion perspectives of millions of Americans remain surprisingly tenuous and pliable.

Keep in mind that very few adults are capable of applying a biblical worldview to this (or any other) issue. Although 51 percent of Americans think they have a biblical worldview (according to a Center for Biblical Worldview survey), the American Worldview Inventory reveals that only six percent of Americans actually have one. Since most Americans (88 percent) are driven by a Syncretistic worldview—an inconsistent, unpredictable combination of elements originating in various competing worldviews—the nation’s thinking about the morality and permissibility of abortion is more likely to be based on current emotions and popular thought, not on biblical principles related to life.

Indeed, the American Worldview Inventory underscores the morally wayward thinking of Americans. Not quite four out of 10 adults (39 percent) believe that life is sacred. An equal proportion of Americans argue that life is what we make it or that there is no absolute value associated with human life. The remaining two out of 10 adults possess a variety of other views about life, including outright uncertainty as to whether or not life has any intrinsic value.

Views about life are closely related to worldview and faith commitments. For instance, more than nine out of every 10 adults (93 percent) who have a biblical worldview believe that human life is sacred. Eight out of every 10 (81 percent) SAGE Cons (i.e., the Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians) possess that view as well. Surprisingly, only six out of 10 theologically-determined born-again Christians (60 percent) say that human life is sacred. Those proportions dwarf those among people associated with non-Christian faiths (25 percent) or those who are spiritual skeptics (15 percent).

Many people are surprised to discover that Millennials are not a pro-life generation. Less than one-quarter of them (22 percent) believes that human life is sacred. Meanwhile, twice as many in Gen X and a slight majority of Boomers and their elders contend that human life is sacred.

Americans’ views about abortion continue to shock many observers. For instance, two out of three adults (64 percent) either say that the Bible is ambiguous in its views about abortion or that they don’t know what those views are. For a nation where roughly seven out of 10 adults call themselves “Christian,” that represents a mindboggling degree of biblical ignorance concerning one of the most high-profile social issues of the past half-century.

Not everyone falls into that vacuum of wisdom, though. More than nine out of 10 people who have a biblical worldview—a group known as Integrated Disciples—reject the notion that the Bible contains ambiguous ideas about abortion. Similarly, eight out of 10 SAGE Cons reject that position as well.

But the idea that the Bible is ambiguous about abortion is held by a variety of population segments. More than 70 percent of people who draw heavily from non-biblical worldviews—specifically, Marxism, Secular Humanism, Modern Mysticism, Postmodernism, and even Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—believe the Bible can be interpreted multiple ways regarding abortion. At least seven out of 10 adults aligned with a non-Christian faith or spiritual skeptics also embrace that point of view. And two-thirds of adults under the age of 50 harbor that misconception as well.

Given these perspectives, then, it should not shock us to find that nearly six out of 10 adults (57 percent) believe that a woman who chooses to have an abortion because her partner has left and she believes she cannot reasonably take care of the child is making a morally acceptable decision. Again, the survey shows that such a decision is a direct reflection of one’s worldview. Just two percent of the Integrated Disciples support abortion under such circumstances. In contrast, more than eight out of 10 who are adherents of other worldviews support that decision. That includes 89 percent of those who often draw their worldview from Postmodernism; 88 percent who often rely upon Secular Humanism; 82 percent who draw frequently from Modern Mysticism; and 81 percent who lean heavily upon Marxist philosophy.

Previous research by the Cultural Research Center also revealed that national opinion is roughly equally divided as to whether the Supreme Court should overturn its disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The subgroup numbers line up similarly to the segmentation patterns related to the responses to the other abortion-related questions described earlier. In general, those most desirous of the Court overturning the 1973 ruling are led by Integrated Disciples (67 percent consider a reversal of Roe to be a priority) and by SAGE Cons (74 percent). Those who want the Court to affirm Roe are led by groups that are not favorable to Christianity.

The Court’s ultimate decision, whatever it may be, will not satisfy everyone—or, perhaps, even a majority of Americans. But for biblically informed Christians, the abortion issue is not about pleasing a majority of the public or persuading a majority of jurists; it is a matter of understanding and obeying God’s principles and standing for His truth.

COLUMN BY

George Barna

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Pfizer Insider LEAKS Hidden COVID Vaccine Info

Project Veritas released the fifth video in its COVID vaccine investigative series today featuring a sit-down interview with Pfizer Insider, Melissa Strickler.

She leaked internal emails that show corporate executives telling staff to be secretive about the use of human fetal tissue in laboratory testing of the COVID vaccine.

Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:

  • Vanessa Gelman, Pfizer Senior Director of Worldwide Research: “From the perspective of corporate affairs, we want to avoid having the information on fetal cells floating out there…The risk of communicating this right now outweighs any potential benefit we could see, particularly with general members of the public who may take this information and use it in ways we may not want out there. We have not received any questions from policy makers or media on this issue in the last few weeks, so we want to avoid raising this if possible.”
  • Gelman: “We have been trying as much as possible to not mention the fetal cell lines…One or more cell lines with an origin that can be traced back to human fetal tissue has been used in laboratory tests associated with the vaccine program.”
  • Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer Chief Scientific Officer: “HEK293T cells, used for the IVE assay, are ultimately derived from an aborted fetus. On the other hand, the Vatican doctrinal committee has confirmed that they consider it acceptable for Pro-Life believers to be immunized. Pfizer’s official statement couches the answer well and is what should be provided in response to an outside inquiry.”
  • Melissa Strickler, Pfizer Insider and Manufacturing Quality Auditor: “They’re being so deceptive in their emails, it’s almost like it is in the final vaccine. It just made me not trust it.”

Watch the video:

These are shocking revelations coming from a Brave Big Pharma Insider.

The public has a right to know how the products they consume are developed, especially vaccines.

Project Veritas encourages more whistleblowers working inside Big Pharma to come forward with newsworthy information on the COVID vaccine.

Email us at VeritasTips@protonmail.com


*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*


EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Does Biden’s $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Include a Mileage Tax?

Here’s a dismaying prospect: Paying 6, 8, or 10 cents in new taxes for every mile you drive. It may sound small, but at an 8 cent rate, that would be $1,144 in new annual taxes for the average American, who drives about 14,300 miles a year. Yikes!

Some on social media are claiming that this punitive tax scheme has been slipped into President Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure spending legislation—which, after all, is nearly 3,000 pages and is chock full of unrelated waste and partisan pet projects. But are they right to be concerned about a mileage tax soon becoming reality?

No. At least, not yet.

The infrastructure legislation does not include a mileage tax or another form of driving tax. What it does include is a pilot program to study and test the idea. The legislation authorizes $125 million in taxpayer funding for this test initiative. (A lot of taxpayer money for an experiment, no?)

“People would volunteer to be part of the test,” fact-checkers at local New York news outlet WGRZ-TV report. “The test would require volunteers to record their miles, pay the fees, and then be reimbursed by the government. This pilot program would go through the year 2026 and at that point, if Congress and the president like it, they would have to pass another bill making it into law. This infrastructure bill simply creates the program.”

We can certainly question the wisdom of this endeavor. But rest assured that if the infrastructure legislation ultimately passes—a likely if not certain outcome—you won’t get a new per-mile bill from the IRS. However, this move does represent a shift toward mainstreaming and advancing the idea of a per-mile driving tax.

Such a tax would be highly regressive, meaning that it would disproportionately burden low-income Americans. So, too, the costs would fall harder on rural Americans who drive more than their city-dwelling counterparts. That said, proponents argue it simply funds highway infrastructure by taxing those who use it. They also note that it could replace the gas tax, which currently attempts to do the same yet fails to capture usage by electric vehicles.

Still, the prospect of sizable new taxes levied on working-class Americans solely for the privilege of being allowed to drive your own car isn’t an attractive one. Luckily, we aren’t actually facing this as an immediate reality, even if it is slowly being advanced into the mainstream.

WATCHNew Biden Vax Mandate Doesn’t Make ANY Sense (Here’s Why)

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

New York Governor Denies Legitimacy Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine

  • Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Monday that there are “legitimate religious exemptions” to the COVID-19 vaccine. 
  • “There are not legitimate religious exemptions because the leaders of all the organized religions have said there’s no legitimate reason,” the governor said. 
  • Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs. 

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Monday that there are “legitimate religious exemptions” to the COVID-19 vaccine.

“There are not legitimate religious exemptions because the leaders of all the organized religions have said there’s no legitimate reason,” the governor told reporters during a Monday morning briefing, “and we’re going to win that in court in a matter of days.”

The governor was referring to a lawsuit filed by a group of 17 health professionals represented by the Thomas More Society against New York and Hochul. The lawsuit accused the state of violating Title VII and Constitutional rights through its vaccination mandate and by disavowing religious exemptions.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a temporary restraining order to the medical workers Sept. 14, barring the New York Department of Health “from interfering in any way with the granting of religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination going forward.”

“What New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel attorney Christopher Ferrara said in a Sept. 14 statement. “And they are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed, or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Thousands of Americans are seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, citing reports that some of the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employee’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs — including potential religious objections to a vaccine.

Earlier in September, Hochul told reporters that she was unaware “of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” dismissing the idea that healthcare workers could be religiously exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate.

To the extent that there’s leadership of different religious organizations that have spoken, and they have, I’m not aware of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” Hochul said. “In fact, they’re encouraging the opposite. They’re encouraging their members, everybody from the Pope on down, is encouraging people to get vaccinated. So people will say what they choose.” 

Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Roger Severino told the Daily Caller News Foundation at the time that neither the governor of New York nor or any employer has the authority to tell an individual what he or she believes.

If an employer rebutted the religious objection of a Catholic employee by pointing out that the pope urged Catholics to get vaccinated, Severino told the DCNF, that would amount to religious discrimination.

“For employers to say, ‘you are wrong’ about your own beliefs is a) arrogant and b) discriminatory because people are entitled to their own religious beliefs,” Severino said. “Even if they disagree with their own religious leaders.”

“Public institutions should not act like inquisitorial boards, quizzing people’s religious beliefs and trying to find holes because somebody has a different view of things,” said Severino, who is the former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  “If separation of church and state means anything, it means that state institutions don’t second guess to try to resolve religious truths.”

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance warns that “whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in many types of Title VII religious claims.

Neither the commission nor the courts should “be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons,” the guidance said, but they may examine whether the individual’s motives or reasons for holding the belief.  

COLUMN BY

MARY MARGARET OLOHAN

Mary Margaret Olohan is the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Social Issues Reporter. Follow Mary Margaret on Twitter.

RELATED PODCAST: New York initiates medical martial law rollout with troops to take over hospitals

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Attack Christianity and Judaism with Dangerous Bill

Vaccine Inquisitions? As COVID Vaccination Mandates Increase, Religious Exemptions Come Under Fire

CNN Expert Wants Biden Admin To Create ‘Guidelines’ To Weed Out Fake Religious Vaccine Exemptions

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

TAKE ACTION: Stop Federal Mask, Vaccine Mandates for Transportation!

Foreword: This blog continues in showing you things we can do. Looking to the positive rather than the negative. Something we can all do to try stop the continuing madness that is the Biden Administration and their extremist agenda. There are a lot of links off the post below. All are important. As always read and share BUT act on it.


Alert Summary:

Members of Congress are seeking to end the Biden administration’s lawless mask mandate for all public transportation, and prevent the implementation of a vaccine mandate.

URGENT: It’s only a matter of time before a vaccination requirement is imposed for domestic air, train, and bus travel. Anthony Fauci and United Airlines’ CEO, among others, have already voiced support for such a mandate. Tell your U.S. representative and senators, along with the TSA and CDC directors, to end this tyranny now!

Members of Congress are seeking to end the Biden administration’s lawless mask mandate for all public transportation, and prevent the implementation of a vaccine mandate.

The draconian and unconstitutional mandate began on January 21, 2021, when Joe Biden signed an executive order requiring individuals to wear face masks on public transportation. This followed another order mandating masks on all federal property.

The CDC wasted no time implementing the order, mandating on January 29 that face masks would be forced on individuals in “airplanes, ships, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares and at transportation hubs like airports, bus or ferry terminals, train and subway stations and seaports.” There are very few exceptions to this order.

The full force of the federal government is behind enforcing this order, except when Deep State government officials choose to violate it. Additionally, the CDC and TSA have modified and extended their mask orders multiple times, while other agencies have played minor roles in enforcement.

Not only is the Leftist-controlled federal government determined to keep its mask mandates in place, but it’s considering increasingly-tyrannical mandates.

For example, the Biden administration is considering mandating the vaccine for individuals traveling from one state to another. Furthermore, Canada has mandated forced vaccinations for everyone traveling in a plane, train, or cruise ship — the U.S. and other countries are likely to emulate such an order. In an interview on September 10, Anthony Fauci voiced his supportfor a vaccine requirement for air travel, and United Airlines’ CEO also announced his support for such a mandate.

Already, Representative Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) has introduced H.R.4980, which would require everybody traveling on a plane to be vaccinated. It is imperative that patriots defeat this bill, any other related bills, and ensure that this tyranny isn’t mandated by executive fiat.

Although the federal mask mandates have no constitutional or legal basis, some congressmen are taking action. For example, six senators and 16 representatives have introduced the Travel Mask Mandate Repeal Act of 2021, or H.R. 4441 and S. 2337. Additionally, four senators and representatives each have introduced the SMART Act, or H.R. 4041 and S. 2084, which would also void the CDC’s mask orders.

Tell your U.S. representative and senators to support these four bills (H.R. 4441, S. 2337, H.R. 4041, and S. 2084) in order to end the federal government’s lawless mask mandates, and tell them to oppose all legislation imposing vaccine mandates. Furthermore, put pressure on the CDC, TSA, and other bureaucratic agencies.

Last, but not least, follow Senator Rand Paul’s advice and “simply say no” to the various mandates and other restrictions imposed by all levels of government.

This is a perilous time for our country, and it is imperative that patriots take bold, smart, and effective action to prevent a total Marxist/collectivist takeover.


Although we provide a way to easily email legislators (blue box), we know from long experience that it takes a lot more interaction with your legislators to get your point across than that provided by emails alone.

That’s why we provide an easy way not only to email them, but to contact them by phone, tweet, and even video message them.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

DeSantis Secures More Monoclonal Antibody [mAbs] Treatments After Biden Cut Supply

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis independently obtained more doses of monoclonal antibody treatment (mAbs) after President Joe Biden cut the federal supply to southern states, DeSantis announced Thursday.

The Biden administration announced earlier this week it would be restructuring how it distributes mAbs to states, a move that resulted in a reduced supply to states like Florida, Texas, Georgia and Mississippi. Florida has been the country’s leading user of mAbs to treat COVID-19, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“At the same time, you can’t just sit on the sidelines and carp about it, you gotta do something about it,” DeSantis said at a press conference Thursday. “And so our announcement today, that we have secured a shipment of sotrovimab, the newest monoclonal antibody from GlaxoSmithKline, that’s showing that we’re gonna leave no stone unturned.”

“If there’s somebody that needs a monoclonal antibody treatment, we’re gonna work hard to get it to them.”

When asked by the Daily Caller if there is a shortage of mAbs doses necessitating the cutback to southern states, an HHS spokesperson would not provide a direct answer. “Just seven states accounted for about 70 percent of our monoclonal antibody ordering under the direct ordering process. Given this reality, we must work to ensure the federally purchased supply of these life-saving therapies remains available for all states and territories, not just some,” the spokesperson said.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki echoed that rationale when asked about the cutbacks earlier this week. “Our supply is not unlimited, and we believe it should be equitable across states across the country,” she said.

Psaki also said that states with “lower” vaccination rates like Texas and Florida were hogging the treatments, despite the fact that Florida’s vaccination rate is above the national average.

Biden and DeSantis have clashed over multiple COVID-19-related issues, including mask and vaccine mandates. Biden recently blasted GOP governors for being “cavalier” with their constituents’ lives for not supporting his pandemic policies.

COLUMN BY

DYLAN HOUSMAN

Healthcare reporter. Follow Dylan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans Introduce Bill To Prohibit Federal Vaccine Mandates

‘He’s As Unifying As A Table Saw’: Greg Gutfeld Says Biden’s Keeping Antibody Treatment From Florida For Political Reasons

Kamala Harris Scolded The Unvaxxed, Vilified The Border Patrol And Dodged Questions On Afghanistan

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

Michelle Malkin: Same Players, New Wave of Invaders

In case you missed it, and you might have because corporate media and even some Republicans have been working hard to silence the indomitable Michelle Malkin, here is her analysis of the sudden Haitian invasion of our wide open southern border.

At the Santa Barbara News-Press:

The manufactured border crisis

In nearly 30 years of covering America’s corrupted immigration and entrance policies, I can tell you definitively that every “border crisis” is a manufactured crisis.

Caravans of Latin American illegal immigrants don’t just form out of nowhere. Throngs of Middle Eastern refugees don’t just amass spontaneously. Boatloads of Haitians don’t just wash up on our shores by random circumstance.

All the world’s a stage, and as I exposed in my most recent book, “Open Borders, Inc.,” the world’s migrants are nothing more than expedient tools to globalist elites, profit-maximizing corporations, self-aggrandizing religious and nonprofit groups, and criminal smuggling syndicates.

That’s how the so-called border crises under former Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump all played out.

The players are always the same: United Nations operatives, U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyists, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its sovereignty-undermining shelter operators around the world, Jewish and evangelical Christian refugee resettlement contractors, international drug cartels, human traffickers, and their militant multicultural abettors.

It’s the same old, same old under President Joe Biden.

Keep reading!

RELATED ARTICLE: Afghan Evacuee Allegedly Assaulted Minor Boys at Ft. McCoy

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Apologies from me for not being able to keep up with everyone’s requests for information.  I am overloaded on all fronts as I try to maintain some balance in my life.  Some of you have noticed that I have deactivated my Facebook page—yes, I have. My e-mail boxes are full and overflowing! The very best way to reach me is to send a comment to this post if there is something you want me to see.  I do review and moderate comments every day or so, and if you have sent me  some information that is off topic, I won’t post it, but will see it.

4 Ways Americans Are Fighting Back Against Anti-Science COVID Restrictions

What’s more American than apple pie? Civil disobedience.


In the US, it would be easy to believe the vast majority of people are in lockstep with the government’s pandemic policies. Networks are aflush with headlines claiming their polls show a majority of Americans support policies like masks and vaccine mandates, and detractors are painted as fringe.

Every good politico knows that, with the right framing, you can get a poll to say anything you want it to. But aside from the unreliable nature of the polls and headlines dominating our airwaves, there is another problem with the media’s reporting: they never seem to elevate stories that tell a counter narrative.

One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of Americans who have simply had enough of the anti-scientific and unconstitutional COVID mandates. We know, and have known for over a year, that the majority of masks in use provide little benefit in warding off the coronavirus. Additionally, studies have shown that mask mandates failed to reduce COVID deaths, hospitalizations, or even cases. And on top of all of that, we consistently see the same leaders who push these unscientific mandates on the rest of us flout the rules whenever it suits their fancy—like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Met Gala or San Francisco Mayor London Breed partying at a local jazz club.

Vaccine mandates present similar problems. Besides being flagrantly unconstitutional and a violation of bodily autonomy, these mandates ignore the natural immunity that millions of people have built up.

The rules only get sillier and more nonsensical from there. Former New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, forced restaurants and bars to close at 10 pm earlier this year—as though he thought the coronavirus only came out at night. An athletic association in Ohio allowedstudents to wrestle—but not shake hands before or after matches. And some hot yoga studios require students to wear a mask from the door to the studio…before sweating out every drop of water in their body for the next 60 minutes.

It’s easy to see why many people are fed up. And in true American fashion, individuals are taking matters into their own hands and carrying out acts of civil disobedience in response.

Here are four big examples of ways that people are fighting back and standing up for our founding principle of individual liberty in the process.

Knoxville, Tennessee, Mayor Glenn Jacobs, previously known as the professional wrestler “Kane,” wrote a letter to President Biden to tell him that Knox County “would not comply” with his new executive orders on vaccines.

In August, the president unrolled sweeping new orders that directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested once a week.

This is yet another example of a silly pandemic policy as it also ignores the possibility of natural immunity. Furthermore, it is quite obviously unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate the ways private businesses and local governments operate. Jacobs, who is known to be a constitutional stalwart, was having none of it.

In his letter, Jacobs wrote:

“As the chief executive of an organization that employs 2,700 individuals, your action adds financial, legal, and regulatory burdens that will ultimately impact Knox County taxpayers. In addition, it potentially hinders our ability to attract quality employees since many folks in our community will not work somewhere that unjustly imposes vaccine mandates.”

“As a fellow elected official who has sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution just as you have, I am alarmed by the alacrity with which you issued this order, contradicting both Article I, Section 1 — which vests legislative power in the Congress — and the Tenth Amendment — which recognizes the sovereignty of the states or the people over matters the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government.”

Now that’s leadership.

The Chicago Public School system issued a vaccine mandate that requires all employees to be vaccinated by October 15. In response to the new policy, 73 of the system’s public school bus drivers quit the day before the Fall 2021 semester began. This left 2,100 kids without a ride to school and the district scrambling to make new arrangements.

Ultimately, they ended up having to pay parents a $1,000 stipend to use public buses or ride-sharing services to transport their children to school. That is only expected to cover the first two weeks of school though, meaning taxpayers will be left with a hefty bill when all is said and done.

And while Chicago’s incident got the most attention, they are by no means the only district scrambling to find staff that will comply with their mandates.

“A new survey about the bus driver shortage shows just how severe the problem is across the country,” Business Insider reported. “The survey found that 78 percent of respondents said the shortage ‘is getting much worse’ or ‘a little worse’ per the press release. Over half of respondents described their shortage as ‘severe’ or ‘desperate.’”

Indiana’s largest hospital system also attempted to implement a vaccine mandate and was met with swift backlash. A whopping 125 of their staff and personnel decided to leave their system rather than comply with the policy.

This comes at a time when hospitals across our country are already facing severe staffing shortages that show no sign of turning around anytime soon.

In New York, which is requiring all healthcare workers to get the first dose of the vaccine by September 27, dozens of staff members walked out of one local hospital. That facility is now so short-staffed it recently announced it will no longer be able to deliver babies.

Bloomberg reports one in eight nursing professionals do not intend to get the shot, which spells trouble for our entire healthcare system if these mandates persist.

A popular video on TikTok shows a group of teens peacefully defying their school’s masking policy in Michigan earlier this year. The video took place at Manchester Junior & Senior High School in Washtenaw County, Michigan, whose county health department issued a masking order shortly before the event.

In the video, parents can be heard encouraging their kids to enter the building saying, “they cannot touch you” and “be kind and respectful.” The kids chant “let us in” and tell the school official guarding the door that the policy is a mandate, not a law. Eventually the official moves out of the way and allows them to enter the building.

The famous American philosopher Henry David Thoreau often spoke on the virtues of civil disobedience remarking, “I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

Other giants in our history, such as Martin Luther King Jr., utilized civil disobedience to effect great change. From Vietnam draft resisters, to our modern day examples, civil disobedience is a great American tradition that advances civil liberties and individual rights.

These are just a few examples of the ways Americans are refusing to allow government bureaucrats to run their lives or make decisions for their bodies. In the famous novel Atlas Shrugged, the world’s entrepreneurs and creators tire of unjust government edicts and withdraw from participating in a corrupt system. It would seem many Americans are experiencing an “Atlas Shrugged” moment, and choosing to walk away when pushed to the breaking point by invasive government policies. Good for them.

These cases should serve as a hopeful reminder of the power of the individual, and our ability to fight back against government when it oversteps its bounds.

COLUMN BY

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education

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

Thousands Take To NYC’s Times Square To Protest Vaccine Mandates And Vaccine Passports

Chants of ‘F*ck Joe Biden’ In Biggest U.S. Protest Yet.


Finally, some signs of life in a city on life support.

Thousands of New Yorkers protested against vaccine mandates on Saturday. A diverse crowd demonstrated in New York City against the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate orders in a protest dubbed the “rally for freedom,” which was a part of a worldwide demonstration.

A diverse crowd marched through the streets of New York City on Saturday; some waved American, Gadsden, and LGBTQ flags. Other demonstrators were holding signs that read: “My body, my choice,” “Latinos against forced vaccines,” “God is with us,” and “LGBTQ people for medical freedom.”

Times Square stormed by anti-vaxxers protesting in NYC

By Jesse O’Neill, NY Post, September 19, 2021

Hundreds of anti-vaxxers flooded Times Square for a polarizing protest Saturday.

The event included a pole dancer, and a person who held a sign comparing the inoculation effort to the Nazi’s mass murder of Jews.

“How did the Nazi’s do it? They said the Jews were diseased,” one woman’s sign read, social media images show.

The woman held in her other hand a picture of a swastika made out of syringes with the phrase “what happened to ‘never again?’” according to the images.

American flags and less offensive signage with slogans such as “freedom over fear” and “wake up New York” were also on display in the Crossroads of the World, pictures showed.

Few in the crowd wore masks, as many demanded an end to the city’s vaccine passport mandate.

The protest came as more than two-thirds of all New York City residents have received at least one shot of the COVID-19 vaccine, health officials said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Chants of ‘F*** Joe Biden’ at diverse vaccine mandate protest, thousands hug at NYC freedom rally: ‘This is the power we want to send to the world’

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

PODCAST: Avoiding Political Censorship

So you are a conservative and want to write a political OpEd piece, eh? And you want publishers to print it and social media to promote it. The reality is that it is easier said than done. I do not care how well you write or the importance of your message, it is necessary to form relationships with members of the press. Even conservative publications are tightly controlled by publishers and editors. Frankly, it’s a “good ole boy” club you have to contend with. You’re best chance for success is to correspond with them to establish some rapport. If they happen to make a presentation somewhere, be sure to attend and introduce yourself sometime during the meeting. Like most people, publishers and editors like to associate a name with a face (remember this, next time you print business cards). If you cannot contact them this way, pick up the phone and call them to discuss your idea for writing.

I have been writing political copy for several years now and I have learned a thing or two about censorship along the way. Hopefully, the following tips will be of use to you in getting your article published. First, let’s consider the embodiment of your article; here we need to discuss the Title, the Body, and Follow-up.

  1. The Title – give some serious thought to this as it will be used to entice people to read your article, and will be monitored by social media which automatically scans titles to alert them of potentially unsuitable content. For example, try to avoid the following keywords from your title: BIDEN, TRUMP, OBAMA, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, ANTIFA, BLM, KAMALA, AOC, ILLEGAL, IMMIGRANTS, BORDER, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, GREEN, BUDGET, ENVIRONMENT, SOCIALISM, CAPITALISM, POLITICS, POLITICIAN, etc. Such words are automatically picked-up by social media and may result in one of three things: voiding or delaying your posting, the triggering of “fact checkers” which will also void your copy, or suppression of the dissemination of your message. For example, it has been my experience on Facebook, where I have nearly 2,000 “friends,” depending on my posting, either they will all see it or only a handful (my political pieces typically fall into the latter category). Social media also monitors patterns in your postings which can result in an adverse effect on your readership. So keep this in mind when you create your title, your headline is important to getting your article posted and promoted.
  2. The Body – keep it clean and avoid crude language. Both publishers and social media alike will scan your copy looking for foul language and will stop your article from being published if so discovered. Also, add facts to support your argument, but be sure to note their source. Better yet, embed links into the copy to allow the reader to visit the source of the fact.
  3. Follow-up – provide a very brief bio of yourself (one to two lines at most). Be sure to include information on how to contact you, such as an e-mail address or web site. I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU PRINT YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER as you will likely be harassed by wackos.

If your article is published on the web, be sure to follow reader feedback. Under no circumstance should you get into a heated debate with a detractor, just ignore them or, better yet, delete them if possible. As Mark Twain said, “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Here are a couple more things I have observed regarding social media and e-mail:

1. In some social media, such as Facebook, you may join different clubs. For example, I belong to several political clubs within Facebook. If I have a political column I want to promote, I may “copy and paste” a notice in the clubs as well as notify certain friends (what I like to call “germ carriers” – people who will help spread your message). Here’s the problem: if you “copy and paste” too fast and too often, social media will automatically detect this and cancel your postings. So what can be done? Two things: do not “copy and paste” too rapidly, and slightly alter your postings. For example:

TEACHING RACISM IN THE CLASSROOM – Here is one way left-wing politics penetrates the classroom.

TEACHING RACISM IN THE CLASSROOM – Here is one way left-wing politics penetrates the classroom.

BRYCE – TEACHING RACISM IN THE CLASSROOM – Here is one way left-wing politics penetrates the classroom.

As an aside, this “copy and paste” phenomenon is actively used by the Democrats, particularly in the “Letters to the Editor” sections of newspapers. They simply “copy and paste” the same text for publication in several national papers. If you are properly organized, it takes just a few minutes to perform this.

2. This same phenomenon occurs in e-mail, particularly if you are trying to send bulk e-mails. If you are using Gmail, Yahoo!, MSN or others, they will be automatically looking for bulk e-mails and, if you are not careful, you will be classified a “spammer” and none of your messages will get through. Fortunately, there are a few things you can do here: break down your e-mail list into smaller batches (30-40 receivers at most); change the name in the “Subject” section of the e-mail to avoid detection of repetition (see above), and; mail to your receivers as “Blind Carbon Copies” (BCC), this keeps people from seeing the other receivers on your list.

3. If you don’t play by the rules of the social media, or write something they do not like, you may get suspended for a period of time (aka, “Facebook Jail”) or expelled completely. You can fight the suspension, but I haven’t heard of too many people being successful in reversing their decision. The length of suspension varies, anywhere from days, to weeks, to months, to permanent. When you come back, you are put on a watch list and carefully monitored. Another way to overcome this problem is to register as a new user, but use a substantially different name. The only problem with this, you lose all of your “friends” you have connected with over time, thereby hampering your ability to communicate with them (which is what the social media wants).

The last point I want to make is regarding fights with Liberals regarding your work. If you write several pieces regarding politics, as I do, and they are not aligned with Democrat dogma, they will assign an individual to monitor and criticize your work. The person’s objective is to harass, discredit, and tempt you into a fight. No matter what you write, they will disagree with you, regardless of how logically correct your argument is. Not surprising, the person is usually an “anonymous” person to avoid identifying themselves and face retribution themself. As such, they are cowards.

If your work is routinely printed in a journal, particularly if it is a public periodical, they will demand the publisher censor you and suppress your 1st Amendment Right to free speech. Again, this is what happens when you become popular and do not follow their political dogma.

When you are censored by a publication or social media, do not be surprised if you are not allowed to defend yourself. We must remember the mainstream media is very liberal, as is social media, making their stranglehold on what is printed or said rather formidable. They have a deep disdain for opposing opinions and will go to any lengths to thwart them.

Mark Twain seemed to sum it up accurately when he observed years ago, “It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people, who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations, do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.”

The most important trait you, as a writer, must possess is perseverance. Keep looking for new venues to write for, such as a conservative club newsletter, local papers, political blogs and podcasts, etc. Next, learn from your mistakes; consider language and sentence structure, excessive use of jargon, typographical errors and punctuation. Most importantly, KEEP WRITING! Practice makes perfect.

Good luck!

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

RELATED VIDEO: Australians are suffering the same censorship and MSM one sided agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

The 4 Biggest Problems with Biden’s Vaccine Order

Surely, the White House’s vaccine mandate plan cannot stand. 


Back in December of 2020, then President-elect Biden said that he would not make vaccines against COVID-19 mandatory, nor did he think they should be mandatory. Given the new vaccine mandate by the White House, set to affect nearly 100 million Americans by some estimates, one reasonably conclude that Biden misled the people. However, Biden’s actions will likely increase vaccine hesitancy, lead to further distrust of the government, and can expect multiple legal challenges – as well as civil disobedience. These outcomes can all be expected due to four distinct challenges to the mandate.

First, Biden’s executive order is just that – an executive order. Congress, the legislative branch, and thus the entire concept of representative government, has been bypassed by President Biden. The White House has no legislative authority to create an emergency rule under OSHA and it says as much in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 states very plainly, in a single sentence: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nowhere in that sentence are legislative authorities granted to the Executive branch. Likewise, the President does not reserve such powers – powers which belong to the states or to the people, as outlined by the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Second, proponents of the White House’s actions have cited a legal precedent – the 1905 Supreme Court Case Jacobson v. Massachusettsspecifically – which is unlikely to hold up to any serious scrutiny. In that case, a Massachusetts law passed by a legislature and adhering to the principles of the separation of powers (unlike an executive order authored by the President) allowed local town health boards (not federal agencies run by unelected bureaucrats) to establish mandatory vaccines if it was deemed necessary by local, municipal, elected officials. Those who did not comply were prosecuted with a simple fine of five dollars. A challenge was raised to the law, and the Supreme Court – the Fuller Court specifically – upheld it.

However, when compared to Biden’s new mandate, one can readily see legal issues. Apart from the legislative process that the Massachusetts law first underwent as outlined above, Biden’s executive order places the burden not on the people, but on private companies, effectively turning employer against employee. Certainly, in an employer-employee relationship, and even more so in a government-as-employer setting, vaccine requirements have a clearly established basis. What is not clearly established, if established at all, is the federal government pre-arranging the medical requirements upon which an employment relationship may commence between private individuals.

Furthermore, the appeal to Jacobson v. Massachusetts ought to enrage many Americans, especially women and minorities. Jacobson was decided under Chief Justice Fuller, who presided over Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), when racial segregation was codified under federal law. That decision has now been overturned, but remains held in absolute contempt, and rightly so. In addition, Jacobson was decided nearly 15 years before women received the right to vote at the federal level, and was also later cited as precedent – even served as the basis – for the decision of Buck v. Bell (1927) when SCOTUS allowed for compulsory sterilization of women deemed mentally unfit for motherhood.

Third, and speaking of women, there are still ongoing concerns about the safety of the COVID vaccines. Although the CDC has said there is little-to-no risk, and the FDA has fully approved the vaccine, there have been recent reports that the vaccines have been affecting women’s menstrual cycles, raising serious concerns about reproductive health. As recently as early September, in fact, the National Institutes of Health has approved 1.67 million dollars to investigate those claims. The NIH appears to be taking these reports very seriously – unlike the White House, the CDC, and the FDA.

Given the recent tensions and commentary from the Biden Administration in opposition to Texas’ new 6-week abortion law, we might assume that the Biden Administration would be a little more supportive of both bodily autonomy and reproductive health. However, that does not seem to be the case. Furthermore, we might hope that supporters of the Biden Administration would never dream of giving so much deference to a SCOTUS decision made under a Chief Justice who helped codify segregation, and was later used as the basis for forced sterilization. But that does not seem to be the case either.

Fourth and finally, Biden’s mandate makes no exception for natural immunity against COVID, now believed to be more effective than vaccines. Todd Zywicki, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, has already successfully fought George Mason University’s vaccine mandate after filing a lawsuit against the mandate on the basis of natural immunity. Requiring vaccines for those already immune is unnecessary and a violation of medical ethics, and Zywicki’s previous efforts will likely serve as a basis for legal challenges going forward.

It is astounding, truly, to watch the White House bypass the legislative process, ignore representative government, and disrespect the separation of powers. It is enraging to watch supporters of the Biden Administration cite a Supreme Court decision made under the same Chief Justice who presided over Plessy v. Ferguson, years before women had the right to vote, and later used to support forced sterilization.

It is horrific that vaccines be mandated before a new investigation into their safety for women is concluded. And it is unconscionable that such an executive order would make no provision for those possessing natural immunity. Surely, this cannot stand.

COLUMN BY

Mason  Goad

Mason Goad is a student at the Schar School of Policy and Government, located at George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter.

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

VIDEO: Proof of Genocidal Hospital Protocol

Our First Hand ICU Story – What is ACTUALLY Killing People In The Hospital.


TruthINRADIO published the following commentary and video:

My husband WALKED out of the ICU in just 3 1/2 days. Fastest ICU patient in history of Cov. What we did. What to tell others. It’s not “blovid”- the protocol is what is killing people in the ICU. Here is what to do and how to do it. What to demand. What treatment. Please Share This! More at katedalleyradio.com in show notes on entire story. My husband had 4 major “risk” categories- so by their “blovid” standards, should be dead. We changed THEIR protocol and saved his life. This is how we did it. ( I look puffy and terrible here on vid because I was brought to tears on the air on my syndicated radio show.)

©TruthINRADIO. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: THE “VIRUS” PANDEMIC IS A FARCE – DR. THOMAS COWAN AND DR. ANDREW KAUFMAN INTERVIEW WITH MIKE ADAMS

RELATED ARTICLES:

Must Read New Major COVID-19 Report

Covid Lockdowns & Vaccine Passports are Transforming USA into Chinese-style One-party State

Members of Congress, Staff Exempt From Biden COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

The Myth That Our Planet Faces an Overpopulation Crisis

Shortly after my wife graduated from college, she joined Zero Population Growth. Looking back, she tells me it was an emotional reaction fueled by reading Paul Ehrlich’s apocalyptic claims. In his book, The Population BombEhrlich wrote: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Ehrlich’s book, despite being spectacularly wrong, influenced millions. Zero Population Growth has morphed into the Population Connection. Ehrlich is unrepentant and still claims the collapse of civilization is a “near certainty” in the not too distant future.

Ehrlich is not the only voice proclaiming the end is near. The UK’s “Optimum Population Trust (OPT) believes Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of the century,” The Telegraph summarized. The OPT movement has attracted followers such as David Attenborough.

In the US, Bernie Sanders recently vowed to support “empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth” as a response to climate change.

Moreover, James Lovelock advanced the Gaia hypothesis that Earth is one “self-regulating organism.” Lovelock forecasts the population of the Earth will fall to one billion from its current total of over seven billion people. Given Lovelock’s cheerfulness about such carnage, it is easy to see why Alan Hall, a senior analyst at The Socionomist, wonders whether “today’s drives to limit consumption and population” are ideologically related to the eugenics movement from the past century. In his essay “A Socionomic Study of Eugenics,” Hall writes in the Socionomist:

Circa 1900, influential intellectuals in Europe and the U.S. voiced concerns about uncontrolled procreation causing a supposed decline in the quality of human beings. Today, similar groups voice concerns about uncontrolled population growth and resource consumption causing a decline in the quality of the environment…Today’s green advocates brandish images of an overrun, dying planet.

Today, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working to aid the lives of children living “in extreme poverty.” In his book, Factfulness, the late professor of international health Hans Rosling, reports on critics of the Gates Foundation who reject such efforts. “The argument goes like this,” Rosling writes. “If you keep saving poor children, you’ll kill the planet by causing overpopulation.”

In the face of advocates for such beliefs, no wonder Hall asks us to reflect on whether we “will make the cut” if those seeking to cull humanity are successful.

We’ve all heard the SparkNotes version of Malthusian predictions of doom caused by overpopulation. Malthus thought food production could not keep pace with population growth. In his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population,” Malthus anticipated the suffering that awaited humanity.

The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

Unlike Ehrlich and others, Malthus had reason to be a pessimist in his lifetime. If Malthus had been writing history or predicting the near future, he would not have been far from the mark.

“The good old days were awful,” observes Johan Norberg in his book Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future. The year 1868 was one of famine in Sweden. Norberg shares this powerful testimony of a survivor remembering back to his childhood.

We often saw mother weeping to herself, and it was hard on a mother, not having any food to put on the table for her hungry children. Emaciated, starving children were often seen going from farm to farm, begging for a few crumbs of bread. One day three children came to us, crying and begging for something to still the pangs of hunger. Sadly, her eyes brimming with tears, our mother was forced to tell them that we had nothing but a few crumbs of bread which we ourselves needed. When we children saw the anguish in the unknown children’s supplicatory eyes, we burst into tears and begged mother to share with them what crumbs we had. Hesitantly she acceded to our request, and the unknown children wolfed down the food before going on to the next farm, which was a good way off from our home. The following day all three were found dead between our farm and the next.

Sweden was so poor back in the 19th century, Norberg observes, that “it was poorer, with shorter life expectancy and higher child mortality than the average sub-Saharan African country.”

The population of Sweden in 1868 was a bit over 3.5 million. Today Sweden’s population is almost 300 percent larger. Is Sweden more overpopulated today than it was in 1868?

Norberg writes, “In 1694, a chronicler in Meulan, Normandy, noted that the hungry harvested the wheat before it was ripe, and ‘large numbers of people lived on grass like animals.’”

Today people live like animals in North Korea. They, too, eat grass and bark off trees.

Geographically, North Korea is almost 25 percent larger than South Korea. The population of modern South Korea is about double the population of starving North Korea.

Overpopulation is relative to the ability of an economy to provide a decent standard of living, adequate nutrition, and minimize the impact on the environment. Using that measure, North Korea, with more land and fewer people, is overpopulated compared to South Korea. Nineteenth-century Sweden was overpopulated compared to today’s Sweden.

If you think South Korea, with its more modern economy, inflicts more harm on the environment than the poor economy of North Korea, you would be wrong.

In North Korea, some rivers run black from uranium mining.

The poor people of North Korea “harvest forests for fuel and to make fields during a succession of famines… Some people resorted to eating bark,” the Scientific American noted earlier this year. The result has been widespread deforestation and a denuding of the landscape.

Ecologist Margaret Palmer visited North Korea, and she saw the “entire landscape was lifeless and barren.” She saw a Malthusian nightmare:

Emaciated looking farmers tilled the earth with plows pulled by oxen and trudged through half-frozen streams to collect nutrient-rich sediments for their fields.

“We went to a national park where we saw maybe one or two birds, but other than that you don’t see any wildlife,” Palmer said.

Dutch soil scientist Joris van der Kamp reports on the North Korean environmental collapse. “The landscape is just basically dead. It’s a difficult condition to live in, to survive.”

Van der Kamp added, “There are no branches of trees on the ground. Everything is collected for food or fuel or animal food, almost nothing is left for the soil.”

Elon Musk dreams of colonizing Mars, but he can find in North Korea a dead landscape with warmer temperatures, more oxygen, and minuscule travel costs compared to the Red Planet. When communism collapses in North Korea, capitalism will terraform the country at an inestimably small fraction of the cost of terraforming Mars.

Based on its ability to support its human population and protect its environment, sparsely populated North Korea is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world.

Norberg explains what Malthus got wrong.

[H]e underestimated [humanity’s] ability to innovate, solve problems and change its ways when Enlightenment ideas and expanded freedoms gave people the opportunity to do so. As farmers got individual property rights, they then had an incentive to produce more. As borders were opened to international trade, regions began to specialize in the kinds of production suited to their soil, climate and skills. And agricultural technology improved to make use of these opportunities. Even though population grew rapidly, the supply of food grew more quickly.

The more specialization and exchange, the wealthier and better fed a growing population will be. In countries like North Korea, Venezuela, and Mao’s China, central planning leads to reduced specialization, which leads to starvation. As Matt Ridley explains in his book The Rational Optimist:

[I]f exchange becomes harder, [people] will reduce their specialisation, which can lead to a population crisis even without an increase in population. The Malthusian crisis comes not as a result of population growth directly, but because of decreasing specialisation. Increasing self-sufficiency is the very signature of a civilisation under stress, the definition of a falling standard of living.

Ridley explains that embracing specialization increases human ingenuity and increases the possibility that more people “can live upon the planet in improving health, food security and life expectancy and that this is compatible with cleaner air, increasing forest cover and some booming populations of elephants.”

In short, Ridley writes, “Embracing dynamism means opening your mind to the possibility of posterity making a better world rather than preventing a worse one.”

In their book, Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline, Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson have startling facts for those who believe the population will continue to explode.

No, we are not going to keep adding bodies until the world is groaning at the weight of eleven billion of us and more; nine billion is probably closer to the truth, before the population starts to decline. No, fertility rates are not astronomically high in developing countries; many of them are at or below replacement rate. No, Africa is not a chronically impoverished continent doomed to forever grow its population while lacking the resources to sustain it; the continent is dynamic, its economies are in flux, and birth rates are falling rapidly. No, African Americans and Latino Americans are not overwhelming white America with their higher fertility rates. The fertility rates of all three groups have essentially converged.

Looking at current trends and expecting them to continue is what Hans Rosling calls “the straight line instinct.” That instinct often leads to false conclusions.

Rosling explains why critics of the Gates Foundation’s efforts to save children are dead wrong.

“Saving poor children just increases the population” sounds correct, but the opposite is true. Delaying the escape from extreme poverty just increases the population. Every generation kept in extreme poverty will produce an even larger next generation. The only proven method for curbing population growth is to eradicate extreme poverty and give people better lives.

With better lives, Rosling writes,

parents then have chosen for themselves to have fewer children. This transformation has happened across the world but it has never happened without lowering child mortality.

In the past 20 years, “the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty” has fallen by half. Rosling adds that already the “majority of the world population live in middle-income countries.”

When feverish dreams of doom are used to justify controlling the lives of others, restricting personal and economic freedom, expect more poverty and environmental degradation with real overpopulation like that of North Korea. It is capitalism and freedom that lift humanity out of poverty, vanquish overpopulation, and offer a sustainable future.

COLUMN BY

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.

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