Greta Thunberg’s Solution For Climate Change — End Modern Life As We Know It

In a book published Feb. 14 titled “The Climate Book,” climate alarm movement poster child Greta Thunberg says that the only way to avoid catastrophic global climate change is to end modern life as we know it.

In an excerpt published by Time Magazine on Feb. 10, Thunberg begins by saying, “The solution to this crisis is not exactly rocket science. What we have to do is to halt the emission of greenhouse gasses”. What that means to anyone who understands how the world works is a halting of economic growth, a halting of transportation, a halting of moving about and making things and feeding the world’s masses.

Literally every activity in which humans engage creates emissions of one form or another. For example, the ammonia that forms the essential ingredient to fertilizers that have enabled crop yields to rise to levels necessary to feed the world’s masses is produced from petroleum. If we shut down drilling for oil and gas, pipelines, refineries and chemical plants, as Thunberg wants to do, that means an end to adequate global food production.

Just ask the people of Sri Lanka about this. Their government tried to eliminate all ammonia-based fertilizers in 2021, and the result was an almost immediate, massive economic and societal collapse. It was so severe that rioters stormed the country’s capital and forced a change in government.

In the Time excerpt, Thunberg obsesses about atmospheric carbon dioxide, the basis of the climate alarm movement, noting that it has risen substantially in recent decades, and ultimately arriving at this truth: “ there is no silver bullet or magic technological solution in sight.” This is absolutely correct.

Electric vehicles, pushed as the “magic technological solution” to do away with internal combustion engines, can never really accomplish that mission due mainly to their gargantuan appetite for an array of critical energy minerals. It will be near-impossible for global production of minerals like lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel and others to rise to projected levels that would be necessary to enable such a magical transition to EVs.

Thunberg’s solution? We all need to give up our cars, of course.

The same is true in the electricity generation space, where the climate alarm movement pushes wind and solar as the “magic technological solution” to doing away with fossil fuels. Never mind the intermittency of wind and solar, they have consistently assured us that that shortcoming will be solved as soon as we’ve developed a “magic technological solution” in the form of viable, scalable backup battery storage.

The problem there is that those batteries for electricity storage are every bit as reliant on those same critical energy minerals as are the batteries that power all the EVs.

Thunberg’s solution? We all need to give up all our electric devices, adjust our thermostats and deal with only enjoying electric service for a few hours each day. After all, they’re already doing this in places like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and other developing nations, and we see how that’s working out. To Greta, there is no reason why those in the developed world should be any different.

In fact, she contends, it’s all the fault of the developed world to begin with. “Beyond the very basics,” she contends in the Time excerpt, “our top priority must be to distribute our remaining carbon budgets in a fair and holistic way across the world, as well as to repay our enormous historical debts. That means those who are most responsible for this crisis must immediately and drastically reduce their emissions,” i.e., dramatically scale back the standards of living typically enjoyed in modern, western society.

“People keep asking us climate activists what we should do to save the climate,” Greta continues. “But maybe the question itself is wrong. Maybe, instead, we should start asking what we should stop doing.”

What she wants everyone in the developed world to stop doing is driving, taking vacations, being connected electronically, eating beef and other animal proteins, enjoying year-round fruits and vegetables imported from other parts of the world, watching TikTok videos and consuming news on iPhones, cooking with gas stoves and living a modern, 21st century existence.

Thunberg insists that making these sacrifices would, if done the “right” way, result in a society in which “we can make time and space for community, solidarity, and love — the true tenets of a good life.”

A far more likely outcome, though, would be the creation of populations preferred by authoritarian governments throughout history, ones that are immobile, isolated, under-nourished, uncomfortable, ignorant and scared. Not exactly how most people in any part of the world, developed or not, wish to live.

There simply must be a better way. If Greta wins, everyone else loses.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialize in public policy and communications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Officials Worked Closely With Climate Group Chaired By Massive Dem Donor, Emails Show

EPA Is Kneecapping Biden’s Green Energy Dreams. Here’s How

FEMA To Deploy Aid To Ohio Town After Toxic Train Derailment

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


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

Democrat to Biden: Ignore Court Ruling against Abortion Pills. It’s What Abraham Lincoln Would Do.

A prominent Democratic senator has urged the Biden administration to “ignore” a potential federal court ruling that could impose a nationwide ban on abortion pills, comparing the “right” to abortion with Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to free the slaves.

“In a few days, a lawless Trump-appointed judge in Texas is expected to ban access to the abortion medication Mifepristone nationwide,” tweeted Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on Thursday. Mifepristone, with misoprostol, forms the two-drug regimen that causes a chemical abortion. “Today, I’m calling on the FDA to ignore the ruling and keep this life-saving drug on the market.”

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is expected to rule in a case filed last November by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that argues the FDA approval of the drug in 2000 was illegal and invalid. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, formerly served as deputy general counsel at the pro-life First Liberty Institute.

Wyden’s tweet encapsulated a 22-minute Senate speech claiming a pro-life ruling against the abortion-inducing drug would be “frightening,” “illegitimate,” and “clearly part of an effort to backtrack on a century of progress for American women and deprive them of fundamental rights.”

“The power of the judiciary begins and ends with its legitimacy in the eyes of the public,” Wyden said. In fact, courts derive their authority from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. “I have raised my hand and taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I do not intend to dishonor that oath,” Wyden claimed during the speech.

Wyden went on to invoke Abraham Lincoln’s defiance of the Dred Scott case and likened abortion expansion to the abolitionist cause, since both allegedly deal with “the advancement of rights versus the deprivation of rights.”

“Not only have abortion activists placed abortion ideology ahead of sound healthcare, but now they are even calling on the government to ignore federal laws. Senator Wyden directly calling on the FDA to ignore federal court rulings hasn’t been seen since segregationist senators called on politicians to ignore Brown v. Board of Education in 1954,” Connor Semelsberger, director of Federal Affairs at the Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. Exhortations for Southern leaders to engage in “massive resistance” against federal desegregation orders motivated segregationists from Lester Maddox to Bull Connor. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized Alabama Governor George Wallace for having “lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.”

Wyden’s conservative colleague, Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), replied that Biden and “his team do not need encouragement to break the law to promote DIY abortions — they’re already doing it.”

ADF has asked Judge Kacsmaryk to vacate the FDA’s approval in 2000 and all successive rule changes, which could take mifepristone off all national pharmacy shelves as early as the end of this month. “The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen,” said ADF. (Family Research Council, the parent organization of The Washington Stand, submitted one of 15 friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.)

Wyden protested that a statute of limitations on FDA review expired decades ago and that Congress signed off of all FDA drug approvals in subsequent legislation.

The Biden administration’s FDA dismissed the lawsuit’s allegedly “speculative allegations of harm” from the pill. “The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug,” the Biden administration argued.

The Biden administration also stated that holding the FDA accountable if it failed to observe proper drug approval protocol would undermine “the pharmaceutical-drug infrastructure.”

But pro-life physicians say the documented harms of chemical abortion are all too real. “I’ve performed at least a dozen surgeries on women who experienced complications when the abortion pill regimen failed, including one emergency surgery just last month,” said Dr. Ingrid Skop, director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

“The safety of chemical abortion is greatly exaggerated. The largest and best available U.S. data shows that abortion pill-related emergency room visits have skyrocketed more than 500%,” noted Dr. James Studnicki, who also works at CLI. “Many of those abortion pill-related complications are being miscoded as natural miscarriage, which masks the true impact of the abortion pill and also makes those women twice as likely to be admitted for surgery for retained” aborted fetal tissue.

A life-affirming legal decision would protect 40 million women from the potential side effects of chemical abortions, according to numbers published in an analysis from NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Without medication abortion using mifepristone, the share of U.S. counties with an abortion provider could drop from 10% to as low as 8% and access to abortion would be compromised — or possibly disappear altogether — in about one in five US counties that currently have an abortion provider,” according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.

The president reportedly fears the political fallout and his inability to impose his will independent of checks and balances. “White House officials are privately worried about the far-reaching implications if the FDA’s mifepristone approval is struck down and what they see as the limited options they have for responding,” reported Politico. The Biden administration plans to appeal any ruling that harms the abortion industry’s interests immediately and has considered declaring a national health emergency, although officials “don’t believe that declaring a public health emergency would provide meaningful new resources in this fight,” said Jennifer Klein, co-chair of Biden’s Gender Policy Council.

Absent any effective alternative, the Biden administration plans to launch “a messaging response” that “Republicans are determined to ban abortion everywhere,” Politico added.

“The insistent push from pro-abortion politicians for nationwide, no-appointment access to dangerous chemical abortion pills demonstrates just how little these politicians care about protecting women’s health,” Semelsberger concluded.

Judge Kacsmaryk has extended the case’s deadline until next Friday, February 24.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Gender Madness: NY Times Says a Male Rapist Can Be a ‘She’

The New York Times’ editors supported a convicted, double-rapist man assuming a “transgender” female identity, despite their vocal support for the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment.

The February 15 concession to the genetically intact male rapist was buried in an article about the resignation of Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. She resigned, in part, because many Scots deeply opposed her strenuous support for a “Self-ID” law that would allow men to appropriate female identity by merely declaring it.

The Times’ announcement of Sturgeon’s sudden resignation read:

For Ms. Sturgeon, the transgender legislation is part of her declared commitment to protect minority groups… The debate was inflamed by the case of Isla Bryson, who was convicted of raping two women before her gender transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison, prompting an outcry over the safety of other female inmates. Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison.

The rapist was named Adam Graham when he was arrested. During the trial, he changed his name to “Isla Bryson” and declared himself female, which caused the civil servants to let him serve his sentence in a women’s prison alongside women. Bryson’s declaration also caused most of the U.K. media to describe him as a “her.”

The New York Times also accepted Bryson’s claim, because the newspaper’s editors have bought into transgender ideology, which asserts that the government must treat people’s self-declared “gender” as more legally and morally important that the nature of their female or male body.

In the United Kingdom, Bryson’s transfer into a women’s prison justifiably generated much protest.

“It is almost impossible to believe that in a civilised society a man convicted of raping two women can be remanded in a women’s prison,” said a conservative Member of Parliament, Miriam Cates.

“We now have the utterly perverse situation where a Scottish court refers to someone who says he identifies as female [as] using ‘her penis’ to rape two vulnerable women,” said Russell Findlay, a member of the Scottish parliament.

“Rapists should not be in women’s prisons,” wrote columnist Gina Davidson on January 26.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Diversity Hire Buttigieg Blames Trump for Ohio Train Disaster

Mayorkas: GOP Impeachment Push is for ‘Political Purposes’

Reid: DeSantis Pushing ‘Literal Government Thought Control’

Kamala on DeSantis: Any Push to Censor America’s Teachers is ‘Wrongheaded’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Diversity’ In German Schools Imperils Education

Diversity is not a strength in Germany’s troubled school system, but a source of great stress, according to a new report here: “‘The psychological stress is enormous’ – Diversity not a strength in Germany’s troubled school system,” by John Cody, Remix News, February 16, 2023:

One school principal says one of her schools features 23 different nationalities, many who do not speak German. The resulting chaos this produces is now being seen throughout the German school system.

It is not possible to teach students if they lack the most basic knowledge of the language of instruction. Teaching staff must now include those who can provide elementary language instruction. And since 23 different languages are spoken, teachers who speak each of those languages will be needed to provide that instruction, if they are all to benefit. A student from Libya or Syria will need a teacher who is bilingual in Arabic and German; a student from Pakistan, on the other hand, will need a teacher who can communicate with him in Urdu and German, and so on. One can weIll imagine the cost of all that extra personnel, teachers of German who can also interpret 23 different languages. And these migrant students need to learn not just the rudiments of German; they need to be brought as near as possible up to the level of their German schoolmates.

Germany has accepted millions of migrants over the last few years, and in turn, the country’s school system has been transformed into a diversified, multicultural student body. However, instead of diversity being a “strength,” the data, as well as numerous accounts from teachers and school administrators, points to the perils of increasing numbers of foreign students.

In a new interview with one of Germany’s top newspapers, principal Norma Grube, who runs two schools in Chemnitz, describes increasingly chaotic conditions where many children have difficulty speaking German, assaults are commonplace, and parent-teacher meetings routinely require interpreters. In fact, there is little Grube tells Die Welt that backs the claims by pro-migration advocates that increasing diversity will bring a brighter future to Germany.

When students from a dozen countries, speaking 23 languages, all share a single classroom, this is likely to lead to conflict between different ethnic linguistic, and and religious groups. Imagine a Houthi Shi’a from Yemen in the same classroom with Sunnis from the same country, or Syrian Alawites (a branch of Shi’a Islam) sitting beside Syrian Sunnis, or Azeris with Armenians, or Turks with Kurds, or Iraqi Shi’a with Iraqi Sunnis, or Iranians with Azeris, Kurds, or Baluchis. They do not leave their conflicts at the door, but bring them with them into the schools of Germany. Nor are these migrants, almost all of them Muslims allowed in since 2015, the year that former Chancellor Angela Merkel, embracing the “diversity-is-our-strength” mantra, allowed one million migrants into Germany, ready to forget their deep-dyed hostility to non-Muslims. While that figure of one million migrants has decreased somewhat, a few, hundred thousand economic migrants, posing as asylum seekers fleeing persecution, still enter Germany every year from Muslim lands. They come not to avoid an entirely factitious persecution at home, but to live on those many benefits the German government provides.

Twenty-three different nations meet in the schoolyard, some of whom cannot understand each other at all and who sometimes come from hostile regions, such as Russia and Ukraine. We need a lot of parent-teacher talks, which mostly take place with interpreters. And that brings us to one of the reasons why the teaching profession has become less and less attractive: The psychological stress is enormous and it has increased significantly,” said Grube.

The stress on teachers, trying both to teach their subjects, and to keep the peace among students who come mainly from non-Western societies where violence is much more common, is becoming unbearable. Teachers did not sign up to also serving as peacekeepers – a role which may involve physical danger to them, and takes away from the time that can be devoted to what should be the teacher’s only task – instruction.

On top of that, there is a level of “brutalization” and disrespect directed at teachers that is impossible for many of them to deal with, which leads to high teacher turnover rates.

Respect for teachers is not a given in primitive countries, where discipline is mostly maintained through corporal punishment rather than through voluntary adherence to a code of conduct.

The Muslim students know that their German teachers are Infidels, the “most vile of created beings,” while they, the Muslims, are the “best of creatures.” They do not, as a consequence, respect their teachers, and are perfectly ready to ignore their commands. There is a general coarsening of classroom behavior that can affect even non-Muslim students, who observe how the Muslim students treat their teachers with ill-concealed contempt, but say nothing, out of physical fear of the Muslims, or still worse, may even start to emulate them.

Grube’s story is far from unusual as Germany undergoes a massive demographic transformation, with critics of what is happening referring to the Great Replacement, the phenomenon of Europeans being replaced by non-Europeans across the West. In Berlin, 40 percent of students do not speak German as their native language, and in cities like Hamburg, the majority of students have a migrant background. Overall, an astounding 38 percent of all children in elementary schools in Germany have migrant backgrounds.

If roughly 40% of students in elementary schools in Germany are from migrant (and, let me repeat, overwhelmingly Muslim) backgrounds, in 20 years, 40% of 20-year-olds in Germany will be Muslims. At the same time , unless the very high Muslim fertility rate decreases and the very low fertility rate of the indigenous Germans — now well below replacement level – increases, today’s 40% of children with migrant backgrounds will rise above the tipping point of 50% by 2035. It’s simple mathematics. That dismal possibility need not, however, be set in stone. The German government can call a halt to all Muslim migration. If workers are needed to staff German factories, the German government can import those workers from Latin America, the Philippines, Ukraine, even southern Italy – all places where Christianity remains strong. Germany can also tie the receipt of welfare benefits — including housing, medical care and family allowances – to the would-be recipient’s employment history. This will mainly affect Muslim families, because while the women do not work but are breeders, the men prefer to remain unemployed, rather than work at menial jobs, which are the only ones for which they qualify. A pro-natalist advertising campaign, paid for by the government, and targeting audiences of native Germans, should be unembarrassedly undertaken. There is nothing wrong with those who would otherwise be among the first to be replaced in the Great Replacement, doing whatever it takes to avoid that fate.

The German Left, still unchastened by Germany’s experience with mass immigration, wants to continue to admit half a million immigrants each year:

Despite a push from the left, including Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens, for up to 500,000 immigrants per year, what is happening within Germany’s school system due to mass immigration raises serious questions about the benefits of diversity. In some cases, schools that were once “diverse” are now becoming homogenous, but that is due to an absence of ethnic Germans and the dominance of, for example, Middle Eastern groups. In some of these schools, antisemitism is commonplace, with Muslim students partaking in small pranks like taping “Jew” to one student’s back all the way to outright assault in other cases, according to Die Welt.

If the Left wants half a million immigrants every year from now on in Germany, the Right should not oppose them, but it must insist that those immigrants be carefully chosen, and must no longer be taken in from Muslim lands. Germany, and the rest of Europe, have now had extensive experience with Muslim economic migrants, who claimed to be asylum seekers fleeing persecution; the results of that migration have been alarming. Such immigrants turn out to be masters of soaking the generous welfare states of Western Europe for all they have — that is, for all the benefits they have on offer, including free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, and unemployment benefits even without any record of employment. The Muslim immigrants stand out for their very high rates of both unemployment and criminality. Muslims are incarcerated at anywhere from three to ten times the rate of non-Muslims, and are especially overrepresented in the commission of violent crimes, such as rape and murder. Unlike other migrants, Muslim migrants mostly reject integration with their host countries, for they see no reason why they, the “best of peoples,” should want to become part of a society run by Infidels, “the most vile of created beings.” They are in Europe, but not of Europe; their hope is that eventually, by inexorable demographic change, they will become dominant in the countries that so foolishly let them in.

The demographic transformation in Germany may be a “big picture” issue. However, Grube provides a view of what the situation is increasingly like on the ground for school administrators and teaching staff:

“Since the beginning of the month, I have been running two schools that are 35 kilometers apart for one simple reason: My predecessor at the Untere Luisenschule in Chemnitz has retired, and there was simply no colleague around who applied to succeed her. In addition to the shortage of teachers, there is also an increasing shortage of school principals.

My new school is not easy. There is a good social structure in the Ore Mountains, and many teachers have taught their students’ parents. There is good social control and many stable parental homes. In Chemnitz, the student body is significantly more heterogeneous. Around half of the children are not of German origin, which does something to a school.

She says that many new teachers are either reluctant to impose necessary penalties against troublesome students, or in some cases, they are even fearful to do so. In general, there is a tendency to avoid conflict among younger staff, which leads to them losing control of increasingly difficult classroom environments.

Frau Grube knows that Muslim students can be violent, and their parents and other relatives will back them in any confrontation with teachers or principals. The parents will even come to school to threaten teachers for having disciplined their children. Why would a teacher take a chance on being hurt herself, in an attempt to impose order in classrooms full of students who are so refractory that it is impossible to get them to behave? It’s simply not worth it. And the situation is just as bad for the principals, to whom those teachers complain of the situation. No wonder that teaching is no longer an attractive profession in Germany. The schools, the put-upon teachers and principles, and their indigenous German students, are all the immediate victims of this invasion by Muslims. But no officials dare to admit that Muslim behavior in classrooms has become a serious and increasing problem, lest they be accused of being “racists” and “Islamophobes.”

In general, in the eyes of young people, adults have suffered an enormous loss of authority, teachers in particular. I recently issued a disciplinary measure against a student who called a colleague an ‘asshole.’ Such insults are also part of everyday school life. It’s stressful, it’s stressful. My very first duty is to keep the school safe, so I suspended this student for a week,” she said.

While lack of respect for authority among the young may be a universal phenomenon, Muslim students are especially unwilling to be respectful of their Infidel teachers and principals. When all their lives they have been taught to despise Infidels as “the most vile of created beings,” it is only natural that they should bristle at any attempt by Infidel teachers to discipline them.

Parents are not much of a help either and often fight school staff when it comes to making changes at home or imposing discipline. In many cases, students represent a tremendous problem, but there is little that the schools can do, as there is nowhere else to send them. Teachers cannot even remove extremely violent students from the schools, according to the principal:

At the beginning of the school year, one student beat another so badly that he had to be hospitalized for two days. I would have gladly expelled him from the school, following the wishes of the staff, but that was not possible because there was no other school place for him in the area. Now, my students and colleagues have to live with him. Their great fear is always that they will not be able to protect the other children at the decisive moment….

I assume the violent boy in question is a migrant, since the effect of migrants in German schools is what Frau Grube has been discussing, and almost certainly a Muslim, because the vast majority of these new migrants in Germany are Muslim. Despite beating up another student, this Muslim boy could not be expelled from the school because, quite understandably, all the other schools in the area refused to accept him. So he remains at the school in Chemnitz, a constant worry for his fellow students, who at any moment might find themselves the object of his violence, and for the teachers who will be compelled to protect other students from him. And no one has apparently suggested that after such violent behavior, if he cannot be jailed as a juvenile, he could be expelled, along with his family, back to his country of origin. That idea is apparently too outlandish even to discuss.

The government of Germany should right now be combing the globe for potential migrants, ideally Christians who, unlike Muslims, can integrate into the larger society. Ukraine, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Southern Italy, Portugal, Greece are some obvious sources of workers who can be invited to move to Germany where, after they have learned sufficient German, can be  provided with vocational training that matches the needs of their future German employers who will have sponsored that training. The will be prepared to work in such expanding fields as electric automobiles, computer technology, and solar energy. While receiving that training, they could receive government benefits, but those benefits would end as soon as they are hired. As for the Muslims still in Germany, great efforts should be made to persuade them to return to their countries of origin. Both carrots — a one-time “resettlement payment” — and sticks, by which is meant that any government benefits that they may still be receiving will be brought to an immediate end, making their continued presence in Germany very difficult indeed.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here are the sexually explicit books Florida is working to remove from public schools

School District Enlists ‘Black Lives Matter Task Force’ To Help Teach 7th Graders How They’re Implicitly Biased

“A Nest of Radical D.C. Activists Masquerading as Educators”: Bill to Abolish Woke Department of Education

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

University of Arizona: Muslim killed prof he thought was Jewish, antisemitic aspects of killing were downplayed

In this article about how the antisemitic aspects of the killing were denied or downplayed, the far-Left Forward doesn’t dare consider the question of what made Murad Dervish so violently antisemitic. That kind of investigation might end up being “Islamophobic.” Can’t have that.

Did everyone miss an antisemitic campus murder?

by Arno Rosenfeld, Forward, February 15, 2023:

Here are some facts. On Yom Kippur, a former University of Arizona graduate student named Murad Dervish stormed into the earth sciences building on campus. Dervish believed Thomas Meixner, the hydrology department head, was leading a Jewish conspiracy against him. “Kikes should not be allowed to exist anywhere, ever,” Dervish had previously told one faculty member. Dervish allegedly shot and killed Meixner. It was the only such murder in 2022, a year full of antisemitism. It escaped widespread attention until after Thanksgiving.

But there are other facts, too. Meixner wasn’t Jewish. Dervish’s original grievance was over a bad grade. The 46-year-old had a long history of violence, including against his parents, and scared some faculty to the point they had avoided campus. His antisemitism didn’t become public until weeks after the murder, when it was revealed alongside a tirade against Asians. And the national spotlight that Jewish groups eventually shined on the Tucson school? Some local Jews say it made things worse.

Many outside the region came to see the murder of Meixner, a beloved teacher and father of four, as a blatant act of antisemitism. It landed on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s list of worst antisemitic incidents of the year, and was widely covered by Jewish media in the United States and Israel. It required — and received — a Jewish response. Yet many Jews on campus saw something more layered and grew frustrated when outsiders began to publicize the case without acknowledging its complexity.

Abigail Simon, a Jewish engineering student, noted that the story went national at a time when Jews are increasingly nervous about antisemitism on campus, and surmised that they might draw conclusions about fresh incidents without much thought.

“I hate to make it seem like people were jumping on a bandwagon,” Simon said. “But I think it was just another drop in the bucket that, ‘Oh, there was a murder on campus,’ and, ‘Oh, the shooter was antisemitic.’”

Though Dervish’s antisemitism, and the location of the shooting, across the street from Hillel, prompted a rapid and thorough response from Tuscon’s Jewish community, their efforts drew little attention as the news of the murder spread. Local Jews also understood that the part of the tragedy that most upset faculty and students was that Meixner and others had repeatedly warned school officials that Dervish posed a threat and they had failed to act. Focusing on antisemitism, some feared, might overstate the role it played in Meixner’s death, and present Jews as more endangered than they actually were.

Outside Jewish groups that tried to draw attention to the case countered that there was nothing subtle about Dervish’s bigotry — no matter what role other factors played in his violence — and point out that antisemitism can operate in strange ways: Its victims often aren’t Jewish.

A grand jury indicted Dervish on seven charges, including first-degree murder, in October. Dervish has pleaded not guilty and his trial is scheduled for September. Judge Howard Fell declined his attorney’s request to ban media from the courtroom.

“Justice grows the best in the full light of day,” Fell said.

A murder, and a revelation
When the shooting first took place, Simon and other students gathered at the campus Hillel for High Holiday programming only knew that something very bad had happened. The scream of police sirens had interrupted a text study. And, a different student recalled, what seemed like the entire campus police department came to a screeching halt outside the academic building across the street.

It turned out that the police had responded too late, allowing Dervish to escape. Hillel went into lockdown. Simon remembered feeling grateful that Hillel had hired armed security guards for the High Holidays. Everyone gathered in the lounge. “We were all sitting in this one room trying to act like things were normal, but obviously nothing was,” said Jordyn Morris, another student present that day.

Dervish was arrested several hours later on a highway outside of Tucson with knives, machetes, guns and extra ammunition. Another bombshell would come two weeks later, when a local newspaper columnist published an interview with Eyad Atallah, a lecturer in the hydrology department, who — the headline said — “prepared to be shot on campus and barely avoided it.”

Tim Steller, the Arizona Daily Star columnist, revealed that Atallah and other faculty members had been hounded for months by Dervish, who was convinced that a bad grade he received was the result of a Jewish conspiracy against him.

“As Arabs we’re supposed to stick together and I trusted you, and instead you’re a filthy kike lover,” Dervish had texted Atallah last winter.

It wasn’t the point of his article, but based on those messages, Steller was the first to suggest that Meixner’s murder was driven by bigotry against Jews. “Although Meixner was Catholic, his killing could be considered an antisemitic attack,” Steller wrote on Oct. 22.

The column emphasized that university officials were aware of the threats. They had expelled Dervish and banned him from campus, but he kept returning with impunity. And nobody thought to tell Jewish leaders on campus, or in Tucson, that a man who had menaced faculty — to the point several had started working from home out of fear — was blaming his problems on Jews.

After the column was published, Jessica McCormick, director of the campus Hillel, emailed Robert Robbins, the university president. Why, McCormick asked, had the administration failed to notify Hillel of Dervish’s antisemitic comments? Why hadn’t law enforcement protected the Hillel building while Dervish was on the loose? Why hadn’t any school officials reached out after the shooting?…

Dervish had been a volatile presence on campus since he enrolled at the school in the fall of 2021. He screamed obscenities at a professor in the middle of class, and after he lost his graduate assistant teaching job as a result, he sent threats that terrified hydrology faculty so much that they moved classes to Zoom. Expelled and banned from campus last February, he kept coming back, and accosted a professor at a nearby CVS. Dervish threatened an employee at the dean’s office: “I don’t think you have any clue who you are dealing with but you are about to find out and I really don’t think you’re going to like it,” he wrote. Meanwhile, he was sexually harassing a female undergraduate student — the same thing he was accused of in San Diego — contacting her more than 30 times….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas: Muslima who stabbed man in revenge for killing of Soleimani is on house arrest, but left to make music videos

Sweden: ‘Militant Islamist’ arrested for five rapes, three of which were committed at care home

New York: Muslim kidnaps daughter, takes her to Yemen, ‘You are in the Middle East, women like you are killed’

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

Is Allah a real God?—A Historical and Biblical Analysis

W.O Williams did a review of the New York Times best selling author Nabeel Qureshi’s No God but One: Allah or Jesus? in his book Tawhid or Trinity: Is Allah a Real God?

According to BookBeat,

Nabeel Qureshi [in No God but One: Allah or Jesus?] takes readers on a global, historical, yet deeply personal journey to the heart of the world’s two largest religions. He explores the claims that each faith makes upon believers’ intellects and lives, critically examining the evidence in support of their distinctive beliefs. Fleshed out with stories from the annals of both religions, No God but One unveils the fundamental, enduring conflict between Islam and Christianity—directly addressing controversial topics like Jihad, the Crusades, Sharia, the Trinity, and more.

W.O. Williams in the introduction to Tawhid or Trinity: Is Allah a Real God? wrote,

Qureshi was a very unusual, very talented man. An ardent Christian apologist, he traveled widely, speaking on behalf of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. He attended Eastern Virginia Medical School where he earned and MD, had an MA in Christian apologetics from Biola University, an MA in religion from Duke University, and a Master in Philosophy in Judaism and Christianity from Oxford University.

He was challenged in 2001, by David Wood, a college Christian friend, to study Christianity and compare it with Islam…This inspired Qureshi to launch a years-long research effort to find the truth. Four years later, despite all efforts to resist it, he converted to Christianity.

W.O. Williams’ book presents 11 key questions answered by Nabeel Qureshi in No God but One: Allah or Jesus?:

  1. False presumptions about the Crusades. Qureshi states, “The narrative of an offensive crusade against peaceful Muslims, along with the overtones of Ridley Scott’s The Kingdom of Heaven and John Esposito’s ‘five centuries of peaceful coexistence, ‘turn out to be fanciful slants based on motivations other than history. The reality is that the Crusades were launched in defense of the Byzantine Empire after two-thirds of the Christian world had been by centuries of Muslim attacks, Muslims understood this and held no grudge against crusaders until modern times, when postcolonial narratives came into vogue.
  2. Grace vs Works. Islam preaches that Muslims must follow Sharia, Islamic law, to find salvation. Christians, on the other hand, are found acceptable to God and are saved for eternity only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 2:8,9). Qureshi found that the Christian way addresses our universal spiritual need. Sharia law does not.
  3. Allah vs the Trinity. Qureshi presents a sophisticated argument defending the triune nature of God. Muslims challenge the idea, asking if the Christian God is one person, how can He at the same time be three? Qureshi responds that person is distinct from being. A being is what we are. A person defines who we are.
  4. Is the Quran Eternal or Created? Qureshi asks how can the Quran be eternal if it includes events from Mohammad’s life, for example the Battle of Badar, and was only written in Arabic. He points out that Quran, Sura 43.3 states “verily We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand.” This suggests the Quran was only created for Arabs.
  5. Allah Depends on His Creation to Be Allah. [T]he most important concept in Islam is the tawhid, the oneness of Allah. In reciting the shahada, this oneness of Allah is affirmed. Allah is monad, i.e. a complete, self-contained unit that needs nothing outside of itself. As such Allah remains aloof from man, and we only learn of him through his messenger, Muhammad.
  6. Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Christians worship Yahweh, the Trinity, and one God in three persons…Muslims worship Allah – a monad who is not relational and neither a father or son.
  7. The Quran Denies Jesus’ Resurrection and Godhead. He [Qureshi] believed that the veracity of each religion’s claims could be confirmed through study of history. Was Jesus God? Did He die, and was He resurrected? Despite his strong belief in Islam and the Quran, his four-year study forced him to reassess his beliefs, and he was ultimately led to “reluctantly embracing the gospel.” He said, “The evidence in favor of Christianity was so strong I had no choice.”
  8. Was Mohammad Foretold in the Bible? A common claim heard from Muslims is that Muhammad was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments. Qureshi writes that as a Muslim he did whatever he could to read Mohammad into the text by ignoring the counter evidence that simply did not allow it.
  9. Were There Scientific Insights in the Quran? Qureshi relates that in fact, much to his dismay, he found that Aristotle had published a scientific treatise 1,000 years before Mohammad’s time that discussed the stages of embryonic development in great detail. Five hundred years after Aristotle another Greek scientist, Galen, describe the same process, again in much more detail that the Quran.
  10. Is Muhammad Really a Prophet? The review of his [Mohammad’s] character leads Qureshi to the following conclusion: “Though other Muslims and I often said that Muhammad ought to be followed because of his excellent character, I could not sustain that argument in the face of counterevidence. Although Muhammad gave plenty of moral teaching and exhibited merciful and peaceful character at times, there are many other accounts of Muhammad’s brutality and exultation in war, his spiritual shortcomings, and his troubling treatment of women, among other concerns.”
  11. Is the Quran the Word of God? Muslims claim the Quran has to be read in Arabic to understand its beauty, but Qureshi asks why would Allah want a book only accessible to those who spoke Arabic? Qureshi argues further that it really does not matter if the book contains beautiful language. It does not mean it was inspired by God. He notes that Stradivarius built the most perfect-sounding violins, but those instruments were not divinely made.

W.O. Williams concludes with these insights,

Nabeel Qureshi sought throughout this study to be unbiased, even to the point of giving Islam the benefit of the doubt in certain circumstances. He said, “Even though my heart’s deepest desire was to defend Islamic faith and remain Muslim, the truth became unavoidable: There was no argument I could use to defend Muhammad’s prophetic status, and there was no compelling reason to believe the Quran was from God.”

We highly recommend reading W.O. Williams’ Tawhid or Trinity: Is Allah a Real God?

The truth will set you free.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

McConnell’s Ukraine Obsession Further Illustrates His Disregard For The Plights Of Everyday Americans

I agree with this article below! We should stop shoveling $$$ to Ukraine unless and until it is proven to the American taxpayer that U.S. national interests are at jeopardy. We also should be assured there is absolute accountability for the over $100 Billion already sent to Ukraine in cash. Furthermore, it should be explained how the $Bs worth of modern US warfighting equipment sent to Ukraine which will require replacement taking 5 or more years has impacted our own Defense capabilities.

I don’t buy the lame argument that if we don’t stop Russia in Ukraine, it will embolden the Chinese to invade Taiwan. The Obama3/Beijing Joe Biden administration has already emboldened Communist China towards their goal of world domination and outpacing the US as the leading super power. Following are a few examples of how they no longer fear the U.S. as they did under the Trump administration:

  1. The Biden family has been enriched with $ millions in gifts from the CCP.
  2. The PENN-BIDEN Center was funded by $54 M in Chinese donations and recent TS documents discovered in a closet there shows their influence.
  3. The Biden DOD has shown they are totally incompetent in dealing with Chinese incursions over US airspace and installations with the recent Spy Balloon incident.
  4. The CCP has infiltrated our institutions, research facilities, corporations and even the federal govt in many areas
  5. The CCP is unchecked in buying up American farmland, ports and other assets
  6. China still enjoys most favorable nation status and surplus trade agreements which Trump was curbing.

Furthermore, the corrupt Ukrainian President, Zelenskyy along with socialist Democrats and warmongering neocon, globalist Republicans like McConnell, Graham and Romney don’t want peace and have rejected efforts towards a cease fire which Israel and others have attempted to negotiate.

Why is all this more important than securing our own Southern Border which has put our country’s sovereignty and safety in dire jeopardy as millions of illegal aliens stream across our border including terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, and other criminals?

McConnell’s Ukraine Obsession Further Illustrates His Disregard For The Plights Of Everyday Americans

With a faltering economy, a wide open southern border, imminent national security threats from the Chinese government, and radical leftists trying to co-opt unsuspecting kids into their social movements, the United States under the “leadership” of President Joe Biden is in a tailspin. So naturally, out-of-touch swamp creatures such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell felt it was appropriate to remind us plebs about what’s really important: Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

While donning his infamous Ukrainian flag-colored tie during his Thursday appearance on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” the Kentucky Republican arrogantly regurgitated the most tone-deaf statement imaginable by claiming that “defeating the Russians in Ukraine is the single most important event going on in the world right now.”

“It will save us an enormous amount of money down the road if the Ukrainians can succeed,” McConnell baselessly opined.

It’s no secret in Washington that McConnell is obsessed with shipping endless amounts of taxpayer money to Ukraine — the second most corrupt country in Europe — with virtually no oversight. So much so that his blue and yellow tie has become the GOP equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits.

But maybe I’m being too hard on McConnell. I mean, it’s not like America’s own borders are being overrun by millions of illegal aliens or the U.S. economy is in free fall — with skyrocketing inflation making it harder for Americans to afford basic necessities, such as food and gas.

Read more.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

‘A Nest of Radical D.C. Activists Masquerading as Educators’: Bill to Abolish Woke Department of Education

We rank among the lowest in industrialized nations while they are destroying our children.

We won’t get such legislation passed until every Americans gets involved and the election system is overhauled. Only then can we take back the country and purge all weaponized, thoroughly corrupted US government agencies.

“A Nest of Radical D.C. Activists Masquerading as Educators” – Rep. Barry Moore Introduces Bill to Abolish Woke Department of Education

By Jim Hoft, TPG, February 11, 2023:

Representative Barry Moore (R-AL 2nd) has introduced legislation that would abolish the Department of Education and give States control over public school spending for elementary and secondary education.

The U.S. Department of Education is one of the newest Cabinet-level agencies in the United States, having been established in 1979.

“The Department of Education is a nest of radical D.C. activists masquerading as educators pushing indoctrination schemes of radical anti-American ideas. For our children’s protection, it must be abolished,” Moore said in the release.

“Across our country, we have seen taxpayer dollars used to expose children to radical gender and race ideologies without the consent of their parents. The education of our children should not belong to the federal government – it is time to return those rights to parents,” he added.

The bill is cosponsored by Reps. Ralph Norman (SC-05), Matt Gaetz (FL-01), Byron Donalds (FL-19), Marjorie Taylor Green (GA-14), and Eli Crane (AZ-02).

Moore provided some examples of the radical left indoctrination being pushed through our schools by the Department of Education:

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEET:

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

87% of Books Removed from Florida Schools Were Pornographic, Violent, Inappropriate, Data Shows

An overwhelming majority of books removed from Florida schools since the beginning of the academic year in September 2022 were pornographic, violent, or inappropriate for students’ grade levels, according to school district data submitted to the state’s Department of Education.

Twenty-three out of 56 school districts reported that they had removed a total of 175 books, while 33 districts (59%) said that they had not removed any books this academic year, according to data reviewed by The Daily Signal.

The data reveals that 164 of the 175 removed books were taken out of school media centers, rather than classrooms, and 153 of the books that were removed (87%) were taken out because the district discovered that the book was “pornographic, violent or inappropriate for the grade level for some other reason.”

The school districts in Duval County and St. Johns County removed the most books at 19 each, according to the Florida Education Department data. Duval County schools reported that they removed 16 out of the 19 books because they were pornographic, violent, or inappropriate.

The data comes amid a review of educational materials in Florida schools prompted by the state’s curriculum transparency bill and a national outcry over explicit conversations, books, and materials for school children.

Media outlets like The Washington Post have suggested that Florida is criminalizing nebulously defined books in schools, forcing teachers to get rid of all their books to avoid prosecution.

“There has been no state instruction to empty libraries or cover up classroom books,” Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary, Bryan Griffin, said in a post on Twitter. “However, we ARE taking a stand against pornography and sexual material in the classroom.”‘

Griffin also denounced the idea that teachers in Florida would be committing a third-degree felony by having certain books and literature in classrooms.

“No. Not literature, not ‘certain topics’ — it’s pornographic material that carries the felony penalty,” he said. “NO classroom or school library should have pornographic material made available to children. Unfortunately, this is a real and ongoing problem. If you are confused about the law, you can review Statute 847.012, which has been the law in Florida for years.”

That statute specifically prohibits adults from knowingly distributing pornography, nudity, or sexual content to a minor on school property.

DeSantis signed a curriculum transparency bill in March 2022, which requires school districts to be “transparent in the selection of instructional materials, including library and reading materials.” The legislation aims at preserving the rights of parents to know and decide what their children are being taught.

“In Florida, our parents have every right to be involved in their child’s education,” DeSantis said at the time. “We are not going to let politicians deny parents the right to know what is being taught in our schools. I’m proud to sign this legislation that ensures curriculum transparency.”

This week, DeSantis officials took to Twitter to highlight some of the more horrifying books found in Florida schools. This includes the books “Let’s Talk About it,” “It’s Perfectly Normal,” and “Gender Queer,” which includes “shockingly obscene comics.”

This article was originally published by The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Mary Margaret Olohan

RELATED TWEET:

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Demonstrable Totalitarian Potential

David Carlin: Today’s atheists and sexual revolutionists have outdone their mid-Victorian age predecessors. They have made it so that if you do not laud them, you have harmed them.


It is now about 350 years that the war against Christianity commenced in the English-speaking world.  It began with Deism during the reigns of King Charles II (the “Merry Monarch”) and his brother James II.  Newton and Locke were still alive in England.  Cotton Mather was living in Boston.  Benjamin Franklin had not yet been born.  William and Mary were waiting in the wings.

Deism was a mild form of anti-Christianity.  It allowed you to hold onto many of your Christian beliefs (e.g., the existence of God, the rationality of nature, the Ten Commandments, life after death) while dropping all of its miraculous elements (e.g., the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection).

The next great attack began in England during the mid-Victorian age.  It reached America soon after the Civil War.  It was made up of three parts.  (i) Agnosticism, a theory of knowledge according to which it is impossible for humans to know whether or not God exists.  (ii) The “higher criticism” of the Bible, according to which many of the traditional questions of authorship along with much of the content of the Bible were thought to have been demonstrated to be historically erroneous.  (iii) Darwinism, which, according to its anti-Christianity enthusiasts, refuted the idea that the vast and complex world of organic nature had been created by an immensely great Intelligence.

The most recent great attack has been atheistic.  During the 1800s, atheism had flourished in continental Europe among a limited number of intellectuals, mostly in Germany (e.g., Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Haeckel), and in the early 20th century, it was a popular thing in Europe among Socialists and Communists, especially in Russia.

But for the first half of the 20th century in the Anglosphere, atheism remained a very limited thing, mainly confined to a small number of intellectuals (e.g., Bertrand Russell in Britain and John Dewey in the United States).  Atheism’s great breakthrough in the English-speaking world came in the second half of the 20th century, thanks mainly to the so-called sexual revolution, a thing of atheistic provenance and atheistic consequences.

If atheism is a common thing in America today (which it is, even though many de facto atheists call themselves by the softer name “agnostics”), and if atheism today has a great number of semi-atheistic fellow travelers among people who think of themselves as religious liberals or progressives, this is largely due to the sexual pioneers of the 1960s and 1970s who, teaching by both word and example, convinced younger generations that there is nothing morally objectionable about sexual freedom.

The chief argument deployed in support of sexual freedom has been, “Behavior between consenting adults is wrong only if it does harm to a third party; but consenting-adult sex harms no third parties; therefore, it is morally unobjectionable.”

To this day, this “does no harm” argument remains popular among advocates of an ever-expanding sexual freedom – despite the obvious fact that the sexual revolution has done an immeasurable amount of harm to third parties – beginning with children in the womb – and  fourth and fifth (and nth degree)  parties.

On at least one recorded occasion, Jesus – who, we should always keep in mind, did not have the good fortune to be acquainted with the wisdom of the 21st century, and thus on some questions, especially those pertaining to sex, lacked the good sense routinely possessed by today’s typical college sophomore—reduced all moral commandments to two: love God and love your neighbor.

Today’s atheists and sexual revolutionists have done better than that (who can be surprised?).  They have reduced all rules of morality to one fundamental rule: Do no harm.

This explains, I suggest, the ferocity exhibited by moral progressives in defending, not only an unnatural phenomenon like homosexual intercourse, but also a downright weird phenomenon like transgenderism.

If you (an orthodox Catholic) express your moral or metaphysical disapproval of homosexuality or transgenderism, progressives reply with an indignation that is so great that it may remind you of the outrage an ancient Jew would have expressed at a Roman attempt to set up a statue of the Emperor Caligula in the Holy of Holies.

The trouble is, your disapproval has hurt the feelings – very delicate feelings – of gays and lesbians and transgenders (not to mention the hurt feelings of sophomores who deeply sympathize with homosexuals and transgenders).  You have violated the One Great Commandment.

In his famous book On Liberty (first published in 1859), John Stuart Mill also enunciated a “do-no-harm” rule.  But he limited the categories of potential harm to three: (i) bodily harm, (ii) harm to property, and (iii) harm to reputation.  Mill mentions nothing about hurt feelings.  The discovery of this fourth category of forbidden harm may well turn out to be the most significant contribution to civilization (or should I say “civilization”?) made by the LGBTQ+ movement.

There is a striking contrast here between the two principal sections of the sexual revolution – the pro-abortion section and the pro-LGBTQ+ section.

The pro-abortion people don’t demand that you (an old-fashioned Catholic) approve of abortion.  You are free, as far as they care, to disapprove to your heart’s content.  Just don’t interfere with those who wish to receive or perform abortions.  Don’t enact anti-abortion legislation, and don’t hand down anti-abortion judicial rulings.  Just get out of the way – and “getting out of the way” involves among other things allowing your taxes to pay for abortions.

By contrast, the LGBTQ+ people demand that you approve of the behaviors that are the definitive characteristics of LGBTQ+ people.  Tolerance is not enough; they demand that you stand up and applaud.  They demand that your approval be more than lip service; you must feel it in your heart of hearts.  For if you don’t, you have hurt their feelings.

I have recently been reading an instructive biography of Stalin by Robert Conquest.  As was well known, if you stopped applauding Stalin a moment too soon, you stood in danger of being shot.

LGBTQ+-ism has demonstrable totalitarian potential.

*Image: The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah by John Martin, c. 1852 [Laing Art Gallery, England]

You may also enjoy:

David G Bonagura, Jr.’s The Sexual Revolution and the Fall of ‘Roe’
David Carlin’s LGBTQ-ism

AUTHOR

David Carlin

David Carlin is a retired professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America and, most recently, Three Sexual Revolutions: Catholic, Protestant, Atheist.

RELATED ARTICLES:

87% of Books Removed from Florida Schools Were Pornographic, Violent, Inappropriate, Data Shows

Transgender Extremism Triggers Scottish Leader’s Resignation

SAFE Act-Style Bills Gain Momentum, Need Clarity

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

Trump To Visit Ohio Town After Toxic Train Derailment: REPORT

Former President Donald Trump will visit East Palestine, Ohio, on Wednesday after a train derailment caused a toxic chemical plume to pollute the town, a source familiar with the plan told Fox News.

Trump will visit with members of the community who are dealing with the aftermath of a Norfolk Southern train derailment that occurred earlier this month, the source told Fox News. The derailment led to the evacuation of nearly 2,000 residents before a controlled release was performed to prevent an explosion, which subsequently released a hazardous mixture of chemicals into the air and water.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that the air and water are safe, but residents have reportedly shared that they are experiencing rashes and headaches. There are also reports of sick animals and thousands of dead fish in local streams.

The EPA tested 500 homes and planned to test over two dozen more as of Friday and detected no sign of chemicals related to the train derailment, according to the most recent Ohio Emergency Medical Agency update. While water testing shows the water is reportedly safe to drink, residents are advised to continue drinking bottled water until their private wells are tested.

Trump has a strong connection to the Ohio people, the source told Fox News. Trump, who was the first Republican to announce a bid for the 2024 election, won the state by eight points in 2020, according to Politico.

He won the state by 8.6 points in 2016, Politico reported.

The Biden administration faced criticism for their slow response to the disaster. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg broke his silence about the derailment 10 days after it occurred and posted a Twitter thread expressing concern for the town.

“I continue to be concerned about the impacts of the Feb 3 train derailment near East Palestine, OH, and the effects on families in the ten days since their lives were upended through no fault of their own,” Buttigieg tweeted. “It’s important that families have access to useful & accurate information.”

Buttigieg told Yahoo! Finance on Thursday that there are “roughly one thousand cases a year of a train derailing.”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

ALEXA SCHWERHA

Contributor.

RELATED VIDEO: Gregg Jarrett: Only a lunatic would trust the Biden administration

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Rejects Ohio’s Request for Emergency Aid After Environmental Disaster

Sen. JD Vance Blasts Buttigieg For Focus On ‘Fake Problems’ After Toxic Train Derailment

Ohio To Set Up Health Clinic To Address Town Medical Needs After Toxic Train Derailment

Pete Buttigieg Slammed By Biden Administration Official Over ‘Misinformation’ On East Palestine Train Derailment

Buttigieg Says ‘Situation’ In Ohio Getting ‘High Amount Of Attention’ Though Train Derailments Happen All The Time

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna Criticizes Biden Administration Over Ohio Derailment Response

‘It Smelled So Bad’: Store Owner Describes Fallout From Toxic Train Derailment

‘It’s Totally Wrecked Our Life’: Ohio Train Derailment Keeps Getting Worse

Biden Thinks Americans Must ‘Judge A Book By Its Cover,’ Tucker Carlson Says

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


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

CBO: Interest on Debt to Triple by 2033, Surpass Defense Spending by 2028

Here’s one ballooning problem the military can’t simply knock out of the sky: net interest payments on the U.S. government’s debt are projected to triple over the next 10 years, totaling 300% of 2022 outlays in 2033, according to a new report published this week by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

According to CBO projections, interest on the debt (which claimed 7.5% of federal government spending in 2022) will rise sharply to 10.3% of spending in 2023 and then continue rising steadily, surpassing defense spending (11.9% of spending in 2022) in 2028 and reaching 14.4% of spending by 2033.

This bad news on rising interest costs comes amid another, short-term crisis regarding the debt ceiling. The U.S. government hit its statutory debt limit of $31.4 trillion on January 19 of this year. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has resorted to “extraordinary measures” to “borrow additional funds without breaching the debt ceiling,” the CBO explained, but they estimate that “the Treasury would exhaust those measures and run out of cash sometime between July and September of this year” unless Congress acts to raise the debt ceiling. For every penny Congress raises the debt ceiling, it will only aggravate the interest problem more.

The increase in net interest payments has two primary causes: interest rates and deficit spending.

First, the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes to fight inflation contribute to higher interest rates the U.S. must pay on preexisting debt, with a small lag in time. The Federal Reserve has raised the federal funds interest rate eight times in the past 12 months, from a targetrange between 0.25%-0.00% in January 2022 to a range between 4.50%-4.25% today.

“Net outlays for interest, which rose by 35 percent last year, are projected to increase by 35 percent again this year,” said the CBO. “The projected increase in 2023 occurs primarily because the average interest rate that the Treasury pays on its debt has risen sharply this year and is expected to rise further as maturing securities are refinanced at rates that are higher than those that prevailed when they were initially issued. For example, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes averaged 1.3 percent in 2021 and 2.4 percent in 2022; that rate averages 3.8 percent in 2023 in CBO’s current economic forecast.”

Second, continued deficit spending increases the volume of debt on which the U.S. government must pay interest. (To clarify, “debt” is the total, cumulative amount owed, while “deficit” is the difference between expenditures and revenues over a given period of time.) “Debt held by the public (in nominal terms) is on track to increase by 6 percent from 2022 to 2023,” said the CBO, which “projects a federal budget deficit of $1.4 trillion for 2023.”

In fact, the CBO projects the federal government will run an annual deficit of $1.4 trillion-$2.8 trillion (amounting to 5.4%-7.3% of estimated Gross Domestic Product [GDP]) for every year, 2023-2033. In their February report, the CBO added 20% to their projected deficit over the next 10 years, due to changing economic and legislative factors.

Assuming that “current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged,” CBO projects that “federal debt held by the public is projected to increase in each year of the projection period and to reach 118 percent of GDP in 2033 — higher than it has ever been.”

Rising interest payments will only exacerbate the U.S. government’s budget shortfalls. According to the CBO project, the percentage of the budget devoted to paying interest will nearly double from 2022-2033. Other slices of the pie must get smaller as a result. But, as Figure 1 shows, the decreases won’t come from mandatory spending (it’s mandatory, after all), which is already a majority of federal spending. Instead, the increasing interest payments mean a smaller slice of the pie is left over for discretionary spending — including a vital subset, defense spending. The CBO estimates that defense spending will decline from 13.2% of federal expenditures in 2024 to 11.1% in 2033 (with nondefense spending declining proportionally), as interest payments increase from 11.5% to 14.4% over the same period.

VIEW: Figure 1: CBO Projection – Spending by Category (in Pct.)

Of course, one often overlooked feature of the spending “pie” analogy is that the pie can grow in size — through either expanding revenues or assuming additional debt. As Figure 2 makes clear, the CBO doesn’t predict that discretionary spending — either for defense or nondefense purposes will shrink in absolute terms. Rather, it will grow more slowly than interest payments, mandatory spending (mostly Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare), and by implication, the whole economy as well.

VIEW: Figure 2: CBO Projection – Spending by Category (in $Billions)

One major asterisk to CBO estimates is their assumption that “current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged.” There’s nothing wrong with projecting from that assumption — it’s their job at the Congressional Budget Office, actually. But a lot can change over 10 years. For one thing, “forecasting interest rates is particularly challenging,” the CBO admitted in 2020. Three presidential elections and two midterm elections give plenty of time for political coalitions to change “current laws.”

It’s not implausible that America might experience a recession, or even two, over a 10-year period; this, too, could radically alter taxation and spending priorities. Foreign events may also interject themselves; a foreign conflict with, say, China could substantially increase military spending. All these plausible variables could dramatically alter the shape of actual government spending, 10 years down the road.

What the CBO projection can tell us is that our current policies are needlessly backing us into a corner. Just paying the interest on our current national debt will cost more and more, and the government continues to overspend its revenues to the tune of trillions (with a “T”) per year. Meanwhile, the CBO predicts mandatory spending will increase by 60% from 2023 to 2033, primarily due to the population aging into Social Security benefits. The combined pressure of these factors will reduce the federal government’s freedom to spend discretionary funds (on everything else), trimming them from 26.5% of total spending in 2022 (and somehow 29.1% in 2024) to 23.9% of total spending in 2033.

If the CBO’s projection is accurate, when Congress gets around to allocating funds in 2033, they will have less than a quarter to work with out of every dollar that they spend. That quarter must cover all discretionary spending, including defense spending.

Net interest payments are far from the most expensive category of federal spending, as Figures 1 and 2 illustrate, so why do they matter so much? One reason is that they perpetuate the deficit spiral. The CBO called the “net interest outlays increase … a major contributor to the growth of total deficits.” These deficits add to the debt, which then increases the interest the U.S. government must pay even further.

Another reason is the irresponsible folly it implies. The U.S. government is in the situation of a person who has gotten up to their eyeballs in credit card debt. Yet the government not only continues to finance purchases with credit, but only ever pays the interest that comes due, and never pays down the ever-growing principal. Sooner or later, those chickens will come home to roost, and, when they do, everything will smell like chicken houses.

A third reason to worry about the growing interest payments is that it complicates the math for any plan to reach a balanced budget. “Opportunities to trim costs are limited, with only about one-third of federal spending labeled as discretionary,” wrote analysts at The Wall Street Journal. Those opportunities shrink further as discretionary spending is crowded out by interest payments.

A fourth, and related, reason is it leaves us less prepared for any crisis. Apart from possible military crises, the CBO forecasted last month that Social Security will become insolvent in 2033, 10 years away. Analysists have recognized for decades that the entitlements time bomb is most likely to kill us when it finally detonates, but America lacks the political will to address that issue yet.

Still, the U.S. government can be better or worse prepared when that time comes. Our best escape route is to free up some funds to deal with the ultimate insolvency of Social Security. Instead, we continue to spend money we don’t have. It’s as if we are trapped in a corral with a deadly bull lying fast asleep. We could choose to flee before the bull awakes. Yet America has not only remained in the ring, but we have backed ourselves into a corner, limiting our chances to dodge its gory horns. And, on top of that, we occupy ourselves by stringing barbed wire across our best escape route. When the bull finally awakes, we will deserve all the consequences of our folly.

If America’s fiscal situation is dangerous, even desperate, why haven’t we confronted our fiscal irresponsibility yet? One reason is that historically depressed interest rates kept legislators from feeling the consequences of their actions. For 11 out 14 years from 2008-2020, the federal funds effective rate lay under 1% (and most of that time it was under 0.2%). In 2015, the interest rate on a three-month Treasury bill, which averaged almost 5% in 2007, had dropped to 0.03%. This created an era of cheap debt, where Congress could overspend with hardly any consequences. Now, as interest rates rise, as we always knew they would, the U.S. government not only has to shoulder an interest burden to which it is unaccustomed, but it has also lost the habit — or even the façade — of fiscal restraint.

According to the latest CBO report, 2028 represents a shocking threshold: the year when the U.S. government will have to spend more paying the interest on our $31.4 trillion of debt than it will spend on national defense. Whether we reach this landmark a few years early or late, the point is that our profligate legislature is spending our country into a pointless crisis.

Just as no one wants to be the team down by three touchdowns at the two-minute warning, no country should willingly bury itself under so much debt that it’s mathematically impossible to escape. Alas, the only similarity between wisdom and Washington is that both begin with “W.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Chinese Communists ‘Hope to Erase’ Christianity: Report

Last August 25, several faithful gathered around one of the largest churches in China’s Shanxi province to watch it dissolve into dust. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities had planted explosives inside Beihan Catholic Church, bringing its 131-foot-tall bell tower crashing to the ground. In a bout of déjà vu, the 10-year-old church had been built on the site of another church, which the CCP demolished in 1990.

Many Chinese religious systems believe in reincarnation — but in Communist-controlled China, a cycle of destruction repeats itself for Christians, according to a comprehensive, 63-page report from ChinaAid.

The Chinese Communist Party has continued to destroy churches, arrest and abuse Christians, forcibly “disappear” clergy, prevent believers from expressing their faith online, and attempt to coerce Christians into proclaiming Marxist principles from the pulpit in place of the Holy Bible. The report’s “partial list of persecution cases in 2022,” broken down by province, takes up 20 pages.

“The CCP implemented various strategies against Christians in 2022. By using the new measures against religious content online and the infamous zero-COVID policy, authorities limited or eliminated Christian gatherings,” recounted ChinaAid President Bob Fu. “By using charges of ‘fraud,’ the Chinese government financially suffocated the house church movement.”

The report details the forcible disappearance of 10 clergy from Hebei prince’s Xuanhua diocese — including two Roman Catholic bishops — and another 10 priests in the province’s Baoding diocese. Those allowed to remain in the country may be forced out of their ministry by government interference. Fengwo Township Religion Bureau showed up at a church last January to tell parishioners the bureau deemed their pastor, Huang Yizi, unfit to preach sermons, because of his arrest record — for refusing government orders to remove public crosses.

The government has told Christians not to evangelize, preach, print, proselytize, or in some cases pray — especially in the name of Jesus. While preventing many registered churches from worshiping in person, allegedly to stop the spread of COVID-19, Jiangsu province also made it a crime “to illegally preach online, give sermons, interpret scriptures, chant,” etc. Police visited churches that persevered. “Village cadres came to me yesterday and asked me not to preach religion on WeChat. Now we are not even allowed to say the word Jesus in our prayers, or ‘trust in the Savior,’” one Chinese citizen told her U.S.-based family.

The government also tried to prohibit Christians from carrying out their scripturally mandated duty to pray for those in authority. “Our church has received orders from government officials. Now when we pray in WeChat groups, we’re not allowed to say, ‘We pray for those in power,’ let alone pray for President Xi Jinping by name or ask God to make him repent. These are all forbidden now. Some of us used to pray for China’s top government leaders, but that’s not allowed anymore,” another believer told a family member who had emigrated. “We don’t know if we can still pray together in WeChat groups after this March.”

To stifle the growth of house churches, the government has treated tithing and other standard Christian economic activities as a form of “fraud.” In July, police arrested Pastor Qin Sifeng and coworker Su Minjun of Beijing Lampstand Church for “illegal business activities” when it printed hymns for the church to sing. Officials have repeatedly postponed their trial, originally scheduled for last November, effectively imprisoning them indefinitely. Others received swift, crushing punishment. Officers arrested a believing couple, Chang Yuchun and Li Chenhui, in December 2021 for printing Christian books; last May, a court sentenced them to seven years in prison and a fine of nearly $37,000 (U.S.).

The report notes the heart of the persecution campaign: the determination to follow through with what the CCP called the “Sinicization of Religion” at the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th national Congress last October 16. The party demands churches teach Communist principles and revise religious dogma in light of socialism.

“Their goal is not only to curate a ‘socialist-friendly’ church; they hope to erase it,” said Fu. “Previously, they asked for sole allegiance to the Communist Party, but since the 20th National Party Congress, they shifted their emphasis to aligning with Xi Jinping.”

To this end, government officials insist the church cede the education of children to the secular, socialist state. Last May, CCP officials reminded college graduates and students of their official policy: “No one may use religion to carry out activities that obstruct the national education system.” They have effected this policy by shutting down church-operated schools, including the Wenzhou Bowen Bible School and Wenzhou Bible School in Zhejiang province last August, or fining those who hold religious education conferences nearly $21,000 (U.S.). Fined people who rented out facilities to a church school and illegally held a human rights lawyer who represented Christians under house arrest.

These measures likely violate the wording of the Chinese constitution, which states Chinese citizens “enjoy freedom of religious belief” and the right to attend “normal” services — but the document, written by Communists, does not define normal services.

The problem of religious persecution is as old as Marxism itself. Karl Marx considered religion the opiate of the masses. Yet suppression of Christians appears to have intensified as China has gained economic and military strength over the last two decades. The U.S. State Department has classified the People’s Republic of China as a “Country of Particular Concern” since 1999.

The CCP faces credible and consistent charges of committing “deaths in custody and that the government tortured, physically abused, arrested, disappeared, detained, sentenced to prison, subjected to forced labor and forced indoctrination in CCP ideology, and harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices,” noted the State Department’s most recent report on Chinese religious freedom, published last June.

Despite their oppression, Chinese Christians remain resilient. Last February 20, “Christian activist Zhou Jinxia held up a sign to preach the gospel to Xi Jinping,” knowing it would result in arrest.

China Aid’s new report coincides with an emboldened China that has increasingly begun saber-rattling, provocatively sending spy craft to hover over the U.S. mainland. While the CCP has begun “brazenly pushing the limits, to see how far they can go,” said the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn. “President Biden’s administration has consistently demonstrated weakness, showing a willingness to act against adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party only after the public outcry was so deafening that they could not ignore it,” Rep. Green told The Daily Signal.

This overseas aggression has bled into the CCP’s treatment of Christians, as officials have attempted to reach beyond its own shores to harass or kidnap ethnic Chinese living in the United States. They also sanctioned Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

“The international community needs to know about these trends and developments” of Beijing’s persecution of Christians “as China continues to rise on the global stage,” said Fu. Unless Western Christians stand up for their brethren, Chinese Christians believe the cycle of destruction will continue.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Rubio Bill Would Restrict Gender-Confused from Military Service

On Thursday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation that would prevent individuals who identify as transgender or who have gender dysphoria from serving in the military, with some exceptions. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) introduced companion legislation in the House. The lawmakers have emphasized that the bill’s purpose is to help the Pentagon stay focused on “military readiness” and not on complications that ensue from gender confusion in the ranks.

“The military has strict standards for who can and cannot qualify to serve,” said Rubio in a press release. “For example, under President Biden, you can’t serve with a peanut allergy. Biden has turned our military into a woke social experiment. It is a stupid way to go about protecting our nation. We need to spend more time thinking about how to counter threats like China, Russia, and North Korea and less time thinking about pronouns.”

The Ensuring Military Readiness Act would build on the requirements that former President Trump issued in 2018 that barred those with gender dysphoria or who were undergoing gender transition procedures from enlisting. Five days into his presidency, Biden rescinded the order. Rubio’s bill would restore the Trump-era regulations by restricting those who actively identify as transgender, who seek or have already undergone gender reassignment surgery, or who have a history or have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Exceptions to the rule for troops with a history gender dysphoria include those who have been stable in their biological sex for 36 months prior to joining and those who are already serving and remain deployable according to the standards of their biological sex (who may receive medically necessary treatment, which would exclude transition surgery and hormone therapy).

Banks identified the need for the military to uphold its medical standards in order to ensure battle readiness.

“Americans who were treated for ADHD in the past two years must receive a waiver to enlist,” said Banks. “Our military holds recruits to stringent medical standards for a reason and the Biden administration’s special carveout for those suffering from gender dysphoria was purely political. Our bill ensures that [the] DOD puts lethality and readiness before far-left ideology.”

Research shows that allowing individuals who actively identify as transgender and who demand medical treatments such as gender transitions surgeries and hormone treatments to serve in the military could cost anywhere between $1.9 and $3.7 billion in taxpayer funds over 10 years.

In 2018, the Department of Defense released recommendations for why barring transgender-identifying individuals from the military was necessary. They cited mental health concerns, including high rates of anxiety, depression, substance use disorders, suicide ideation, attempts, and completion. They also noted that “Service members with gender dysphoria are eight times more likely to attempt suicide than Service members as a whole” and “nine times more likely to have mental health encounters.”

The DOD further emphasized physical health concerns, including the fact that combat deployments anywhere in the world are often part of military service without the expectation of specialized medical care, which is required for gender transition procedures. Also cited was the concern over duty limitations that gender transition procedures would cause. Research indicates that these procedures could cause troops to be nondeployable anywhere from 111 to 135 days.

Other issues highlighted by the DOD include the private spaces of one sex, such as bathroom and shower facilities, being open to the opposite sex, which the department argues would undermine the “reasonable expectations of privacy” that both sexes have. Additionally, the department pointed to problems that could arise from trans-identifying individuals of both sexes being held to the opposite military physical standards of their biological sex.

The DOD concluded that “exempting such persons for well-established mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards, which apply to all Service members, could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.”

Military experts are voicing similar concerns over the prospect of transgender-identifying individuals serving in the armed forces, particularly with the current global challenges facing U.S. troops.

“Senator Rubio’s efforts to deal with the issue of transgender-identifying individuals in the military are to be lauded,” said Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. Boykin, who serves as executive vice president of Family Research Council. “The senator clearly understands that at a time when China is flying surveillance platforms into our airspace and becoming more and more belligerent and provocative that our precious dollars and time need to go into preparing our military for war. The notion that we can continue prioritizing making our military more ‘woke’ is a specious notion.”

“Every decision made by the president and Congress regarding our military should be made with the readiness of our military in mind,” Boykin concluded. “What the senator is proposing would set us on a pathway to spend our time and money preparing for war with not only China but other adversaries that loom on the horizon.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

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


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Time to Ditch Davos Autocrats, Woke Companies & their Insane Agenda

Over the years, what have we constantly heard, from the lying left… BOYCOTTS DON’T WORK.

Fact:  What action made the largest impression during the Civil Rights movement? The Boycott of the Montgomery Busses.

“The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a civil rights protest during which African Americans refused to ride city buses in Montgomery, Alabama, to protest segregated seating. The boycott took place from December 5, 1955, to December 20, 1956, and is regarded as the first large-scale U.S. demonstration against segregation.”

The Globalists are only interested in Money, Power, and Control. Any policy that is a threat to their bottom line is devastating. So why are we constantly told Boycotts don’t work? Because the left is so afraid of losing money, and they know we can put them out of business. Just look at Vanguard, Disney, Hollywood, and Bed Bath and Beyond, now broken; these companies have lost millions due to patriots directing their dollars to companies that support Americans like My Pillow, and Chic-Fil-A.

The Globalists boycott any company that is not WOKE while we watch. Only you will never know because the boycott has a new name: Cancel Culture.

It’s time for us to cancel the Globalists and the CCP. Can you stop using a product produced by a woke culture designed to destroy the family, women, American families, and God?

Let’s look at the soda industry. Woke-A-Cola is pushing LGBTQ and helped to push MLB out of Georgia by telling lies about voter integrity. By accepting Human Rights violations in China, the company could not care less about Americans. In addition, for all those greenies: all soda, beer, and bubbly wines are filled with CO2. How can you “control climate” if our drink of choice adds to the problem? Time to cancel drinks filled with CO2. Will you join us?

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who routinely says that “Florida is where woke goes to die,” just shut down another woke corporate (NHL) scheme in the Sunshine State.

Let’s make 2023 the year of action. Let’s send a message. Starting in February, NO MORE CO2 drinks. No more Woke-a-Cola. No more CCP Smithfield Foods! No more World Economic Forum stakeholders! Please share…

©The Prism of America’s Education. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Elon Musk Torches One-World Government at World Government Summit.