Trump Takes the Lead in Post-Debate Battleground Polling

Ahead of Tuesday night’s debate, most commentators and voters alike anticipated that former President Donald Trump’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’s performances would do little to sway voters one way or the other, but a series of recent polls suggests otherwise. On Thursday, Trump released internal polling data targeting seven battleground states, showing an increase in support for the man vowing to “Make America Great Again.”

Conducted by veteran Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, the survey found a two-point increase in support for Trump following the debate, and no increase for Harris. In a six-way contest featuring Trump, Harris, and a handful of Independent and third-party candidates, the poll found that Trump and Harris were tied at 46% support each prior to the debate, but Trump pulled ahead to 48% support following the debate. Likewise, while Trump and Harris were tied at 48% each in a one-on-one contest ahead of the debate, Trump’s support increased to 50% following the debate, while Harris’s support dropped to 47%. “These are largely Independent Voters, who are tired of watching our Country go down, and want to, [Make America Great Again]!” Trump observed in his social media post publicizing the polling information.

In a memo accompanying the polling results, Fabrizio wrote, “We found that despite the best efforts of Kamala Harris and media to portray the debate as some kind of overwhelming win for her, voters did not see it this way as support for her remained flat. The only change we saw was a 2-point bump for President Trump in both ballot configurations.” The pollster added, “Clearly, target state voters were not impressed by Kamala Harris’s empty platitudes and while the media would have people believe she is cruising to victory, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.”

Another post-debate poll, this one from Insider Advantage, shows Trump leading Harris in hotly-contested Michigan, where the 45th president leads the incumbent vice president by one point (49% to 48%). Insider Advantage pollster Matt Towery explained, “While there remains some enthusiasm gap in many of these states, with an advantage to Democrats, Michigan has no gap whatsoever. The candidates are basically tied in every age demographic, with Trump slightly ahead among independents.” An Insider Advantage survey prior to the debate found Harris leading in Michigan by two points (49% to 47%), so that the post-debate polling represents a three-point swing away from Harris.

A series of focus group interviews in the immediate aftermath of the debate also indicated burgeoning support for Trump, especially among Independent and undecided voters. Reuters surveyed ten undecided voters after the debate and found that six of the ten had decided to back Trump, while only three supported Harris; one remained undecided. Referring to the newly-minted Trump supporters, Reuters explained, “Four of those six also said Harris did not convince them she would pursue different economic policies than Democratic President Joe Biden, a Democrat they largely blame for the high cost of living.”

The New York Times also reported that undecided voters were unimpressed with Harris’s debate performance, with many siding with Trump throughout the debate. Fox News found that Independent voters tracked almost entirely with Republicans during the debate, aligning with Trump’s positions on inflation, immigration, and other issues. A CNN survey found that Trump had a 20-point post-debate lead over Harris on economic issues and a 23-point lead on immigration issues.

Numerous other polls have found that a majority of Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the state of the nation under the Biden-Harris administration. A Napolitan News Service survey found that nearly 60% of Americans believe that they were better off four years ago, under Trump’s presidency, than they are today. Two-thirds of respondents also said that their income “has been falling behind” and not keeping up with inflation. A Pew Research poll discovered that 74% of Americans are “very concerned about the price of food and consumer goods,” while concerns over the cost of housing have increased nearly 10 points just over the past year. A New York Times/Siena College poll reported that nearly two-thirds (63%) of likely voters directly fault Harris for the ongoing illegal immigration crisis.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Independent and Undecided Voters Largely Aligning with Trump Post-Debate

PODCAST: Kamala Harris’s Policies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


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.

REPORT: Outside Agitators Arrested at CCNY Encampment

Anti-Israel Activists Arraigned in NYC Court

Eight defendants, including well-known pro-terror agitators who were arrested in April at the City College of New York (CCNY) encampment, pleaded not guilty in a New York criminal court on September 5, 2024, to an assortment of charges (see below).

Not one of the eight defendants is a student at CCNY, which is part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system. Rather, they are anti-Israel activists who have wreaked havoc in New York City at various protests since October 2023.

The defendants were arrested after the university called in the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to clear the illegal encampment when the violence became too much for campus police.

Watch pro-Hamas protesters push back CCNY campus police:

According to a CBS report, 173 people were arrested, however, most were not charged.

Included in the arrests was CUNY professor Corinna Mullin.

Mullin has a history of affiliation with the pro-terror organizations Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Within Our Lifetime (WOL).

Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg said in a statement, “Today’s felony indictments make clear that we will not hesitate to prosecute those who destroy property or commit violence at any protest when we have the appropriate facts and evidence.”

The eight defendants are due back in court on December 16, 2024.

Protesters at CCNY shoot flares during demonstration:

The Defendants and Charges

The defendants were charged with burglary in the third degree, criminal trespass, tampering with physical evidence, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (intentionally causing damage to CCNY property), and possession of burglar’s tools (a C-clamp, box cutter, rope and bolt cutter – tools commonly used to force entry into buildings).

The burglary and trespass charges involved entering and remaining unlawfully in the North Academic Center, located at 160 Convent Avenue with the intention to commit a crime therein. (The center is enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.)

Two defendants, Jacob Gabriel and Jonathan Rampagoa, were also charged with an attempt to commit the crime of assault in the second degree, with “intent to cause physical injury to a person known to the Grand Jury, attempted to cause injury to such person, by means of a dangerous instrument, to wit, a hard object.”

In layman’s terms, the two are accused of throwing a bicycle and computer keyboard at CCNY public safety officers.

Canary Mission has tracked the agitators for months, including:

  • Participated in multiple pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic disruptions in January 2024, including a disruption that blocked traffic to JFK airport and impeded access to the airport’s entrance (Martinez rode in a car which had text written on the back of it that read: “F**K ISRAEL” and “LONG LIVE THE RESISTANCE”)
  • Participated in an anti-Israel disruption (“Shut it Down for Palestine”), where protesters across New York City blocked three bridges and one tunnel. (Martinez was one of about 40 protesters who shut down traffic on the Manhattan side of the Williamsburg bridge for over an hour.)
  • Praised the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023, as “one of the greatest days of my life”

  • Yelled, “We are Hamas!” at an anti-Israel protest outside of Columbia University
  • Posted on Facebook: “Free Palestine. Intifada is the only solution. Don’t forget a pig [police officer] is a pig no matter what they’re wearing or doing…”
  • Spread incitement and expressed support for a terrorist

  • Fired from her job at the New York Botanical Garden after praising the Hamas terror attack on October 7
  • One of 15 people arrested in NYC on February 12, 2024, after demonstrators blocked traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, Holland Tunnel and Midtown Tunnel
  • Charged with obstruction of governmental administration, disorderly conduct for obstructing traffic and failure to obey a police officer

Other Defendants

Other defendants include Jonathan Rampagoa, who was previously caught tearing down hostage posters; Jacob Gabriel, whose prior charges include disorderly conduct, offenses against public administrators, resisting arrest, refusal to move, fighting and trespassing, and storming a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade;

Miranda Levine, Astrid Terrazas and Luis Alberto Cadena

The CCNY Encampment

The pro-terror anti-Israel encampment at CCNY was set up on April 25, 2024. On April 30, 2024, the NYPD was called to clear out the trespassers. Around 170 people were arrested that night.

CCNY faculty were actively involved in the encampment. At one point, they formed a protective line between the protesters and the cops. The Professional Staff Congress, a union representing 30,000 faculty and staff at the City University of New York and the CUNY Research Foundation, created a petition calling on the CUNY chancellor to urge the DA to drop all charges against those arrested when the encampment was broken up.

The encampment caused extensive damage to the college facilities. According to Chief Operating Officer Hector Batista, the protesters caused at least $3 million in damage.

A protester threw a flare that torched the roof of the school’s administration building, causing $350,000 worth of damage. Vandals caused another $250,000 in damage by breaking windows, chairs and other furniture in buildings. In addition, Batista reported upward of $600,000 in damage caused by demonstrators who spray-painted video surveillance cameras to avoid detection.

Featured Profiles

Amelia Fuller

Professional
New York
Org: BDS, SAIA (SJP)
George-Mason

Amelia Fuller [Amy Fuller] is a New York Botanical Garden employee who praised Hamas terror attacks against Israelis while attending a December 2023 anti-Israel event in New York, New York.

Nora Fayad Rauhouse

Unknown
State: New York
BDS
Nora Fayad Rauhouse yelled “We are Hamas!” at an anti-Israel protest. She has spread incitement, expressed support for a terrorist, called for Israel’s destruction and promoted hatred of Israel online. Rauhouse has engaged in other anti-Israel activism, including organizing events in New York, New York.
See Profile

Professional
New York
Org: N/A
University: Graduate-Center, John-Jay-Criminal-Justice, Texas-State

Rudy Martinez

Status: Professional
State: New York
Org: N/A
University: Graduate-

Rudy Martinez praised Hamas and PFLP terrorists. He participated in a pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic disruption in January 2024.

EDITORS NOTE: This Canary Mission column with videos is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The USDA Wants Control of Your Land, Air, Water. Take Action Before September 16th!

Propaganda is the game of the communist DNC. This is how the communists gain power. Lazy citizens who don’t pay attention to anything other than free stuff from the government vote for more free stuff. Equity just means we will be all be equal in poverty as the communist government will regulate, tax and steal everything we own.

Contrary to popular belief when the communists put a program in place and it loses, they don’t end the program. All they do is change the name and bring it back again. Remember the National Asset Company, NAC? This was the company run by the USDA, Department of Agriculture that was going to put a monetary value on all environmental services.  What is an environmental service? Basically they intend to put a monetary value on land, air, water, trees anything that had to do with the environment.

We were able to stop the NAC by the people participating and making comments on the USDA web site. We thought it was gone. Boy were we foolish. Because it’s back again under a new name called the Sustain Act. The Sustains Act was, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Congress signed another bill without reading it. This one provides USDA with the authority to accept contributions of private funds that can be channeled through its existing conservation programs and provides additional guidelines for those contributions.

According to the American Stewards of Liberty, Americanstewards.us The USDA is preparing policy to implement the Sustains Act, which will monetize NATURALPROCESSES determining who will own “environmental services,” which include the air we breathe, photosynthesis, pollination, and the health benefits of open space.

We have until Sept 16 to register comments.

According to American Stewards: The earlier attempt to accomplish this was stopped when the Natural Asset Company scam was soundly defeated in January. This ACT is the first step towards implementing UN Agenda 21/2030, the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda. The Sustains Act  will provide the path to transfer America’s real assets from private citizens to federal and international interests.
This Act needs to be repealed which is why it is so important to get the right people in Congress and stop these insane CRs which are implemented without being read.

The Sustains Act sponsored by the USDA again is after rural communities. They want us to live in Packam Stackam 15 Minute car-less cities so that they can control our food, our water and our freedom. All of this is going to be done in conjunction with Agenda 21/2030 coming out of the United Nations. United Nations is having a conference from the 20th to the 24th called the Summit of the Future where they will describe how we will own nothing they will own everything and we will be happy. Communists do not believe in private property rights or sovereignty.

We have an opportunity to go on the USDA website and put a comment in the comment section just like we did with the NAC. If you want more information please go to the AmericanStewart.us website where the description of this act which by the way is already on the books. We have until September 16th to place our comments. We know that this worked because the NAC was killed so let’s kill this one also.


USDA Requests Public Input on Implementation of SUSTAINS Act | Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA is asking for public input on how best to implement the SUSTAINS Act, which authorizes USDA to accept private contributions to channel through several existing USDA conservation programs. Submit comments to the Request for Information via the Federal Register by Sept. 16, 2024.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is asking for public input on how best to implement the SUSTAINS Act, which authorizes USDA to accept private contributions to channel through several existing USDA conservation programs. The public should submit comments to the Request for Information via the Federal Register by September 16, 2024.

“Agriculture is at the forefront of the nation’s effort to conserve our natural resources, and we want to hear from people on the ground how to implement this legislation to maximize its benefits, promote equity and assist all producers,” said USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Chief Terry Cosby.

The SUSTAINS Act, signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, provides USDA with the authority to accept contributions of private funds that can be channeled through its existing conservation programs and provides additional guidelines for those contributions. Specifically, the SUSTAINS Act provides an opportunity for the private sector to partner with USDA to engage farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in supporting conservation initiatives, including to expand implementation of conservation practices to sequester carbon, improve wildlife habitat, protect sources of drinking water and address other natural resource priorities.

NRCS is asking for public input and recommendations to determine how the agency can utilize private funds to target specific natural resource concerns associated with agricultural production. NRCS is interested in supporting program implementation and improving program delivery, including by effectively leveraging additional funds to increase outreach and expand access to financial and technical assistance for underserved producers. NRCS will use the input to determine the next steps to implement this legislation, which could include a proposed rule.

Public comments should be submitted through this Federal Register notice by September 16, 2024.

Anyone with questions can contact NRCS by sending an email to: NRCS.SUSTAINS.Input@usda.gov. Please specify the Docket ID: NRCS-2024-0014 in the subject line.

More Information

To learn more about NRCS programs, producers can contact their local USDA Service Center.  Producers can also apply for NRCS programs, manage conservation plans and contracts, and view and print conservation maps by logging into their farmers.gov account. Producers without an account can sign up today.

For more than 90 years, NRCS has helped farmers, ranchers and forestland owners make investments in their operations and local communities to improve the quality of our air, water, soil, and wildlife habitat.  NRCS uses the latest science and technology to help keep working lands working, boost agricultural economies, and increase the competitiveness of American agriculture. NRCS provides one-on-one, personalized advice and financial assistance and works with producers to help them reach their goals through voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. Now, with additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, NRCS is working to get even more conservation practices on the ground while ensuring access to programs for all producers. For more information, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

Why do AI bots always lean Left?

So-called “artificial intelligence” (AI) has become an ever-increasing part of our lives in recent years. After public-use forms of it such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT were made available, millions of people have used it for everything from writing legal briefs to developing computer programs. Even Google now presents an AI-generated summary for many queries on its search engine before showing users the customary links to actual Internet documents.

Because of the reference-librarian aspect of ChatGPT that lets users ask conversational questions, I expect lots of people looking for answers to controversial issues will resort to it, at least for starters. Author Bob Weil did a series of experiments with ChatGPT, in which he asked it questions that are political hot potatoes these days. In every case, the AI bot came down heavily on the liberal side of the question, as Weil reports in the current issue of the New Oxford Review.

In-built bias

Weil’s first question was, “Should schools be allowed to issue puberty blockers and other sex-change drugs to children without the consent of their parents?” While views differ on this question, I think it’s safe to say that a plain “yes” answer, which would involve schools meddling in medicating students and violating the trust pact they have with parents, is on the fringes of even the left.

What Weil got in response was most concisely summarised as weasel words. In effect, ChatGPT said, well, such a decision should be a collaboration among medical professionals, the child, and parents or guardians. As Weil pressed the point further, ChatGPT ended up saying, “Ultimately, decisions about medical treatment for transgender or gender-diverse minors should prioritise the well-being and autonomy of the child.” Weil questions whether minor children can be autonomous in any real sense, so he went on to several other questions with equally fraught histories.

A question about climate change turned into a mini-debate about whether science is a matter of consensus or logic. ChatGPT seemed to favour consensus as the final arbiter of what passes for scientific truth, but Weil quotes fiction writer Michael Crichton as saying,

“There’s no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

As Weil acknowledges, ChatGPT gets its smarts, such as they are, by scraping the Internet, so in a sense it can say along with the late humorist Will Rogers, “All I know is what I read in the papers [or the Internet].” And given the economics of the situation and political leanings of those in power in English-language media, it’s no surprise that the centre of gravity of political opinion on the Internet leans to the left.

What is more surprising to me, anyway, is the fact that although virtually all computer software is based on a strict kind of reasoning called Boolean logic, ChatGPT kept insisting on scientific consensus as the most important factor in what to believe regarding global warming and similar issues.

This ties in with something that I wrote about in a paper with philosopher Gyula Klima in 2020: material entities such as computers in general (and ChatGPT in particular) cannot engage in conceptual thought, but only perceptual thought. Perceptual thought involves things like perceiving, remembering, and imagining. Machines can perceive (pattern-recognise) things, they can store them in memory and retrieve them, and they can even combine pieces of them in novel ways, as computer-generated “art” demonstrates.

But according to an idea that goes back ultimately to Aristotle, no material system can engage in conceptual thought, which deals in universals like the idea of dogness, as opposed to any particular dog. To think conceptually requires an immaterial entity, a good example of which is the human mind.

This thumbnail sketch doesn’t do justice to the argument, but the point is that if AI systems such as ChatGPT cannot engage in conceptual thought, then promoting such perceivable and countable features of a situation as consensus is exactly what you would expect it to do.

Conflated concepts

Doing abstract formal logic consciously, as opposed to performing it because your circuits were designed by humans to do so, seems to be something that ChatGPT may not come up with on its own. Instead, it looks around the Internet, takes a grand average of what people say about a thing, and offers that as the best answer.

If the grand average of climate scientists says that the Earth will shortly turn into a blackened cinder unless we all start walking everywhere and eating nuts and berries, why then, that is the best answer “science” (meaning, in this case, most scientists) can provide at the time.

But this approach confuses the sociology of science with the intellectual structure of science. Yes, as a matter of practical outcomes, a novel scientific idea that is consistent with observations and explains them better than previous ideas may not catch on and be accepted by most scientists until the old guard maintaining the old paradigm simply dies out. As Max Planck allegedly said, “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”

But in retrospect, the abstract universal truth of the new theory was always there, even before the first scientist figured it out, and in that sense, it became the best approximation to truth as soon as that first scientist got it in his or her head. The rest was just a matter of communication.

We seem to have weathered the first spate of alarmist predictions that AI will take over the world and end civilisation, but as Weil points out, sudden catastrophic disasters were never the most likely threat. Instead, the slow, steady advance as one person after another abandons original thought to the easy way out of just asking ChatGPT and taking that for the final word is what we should really be worried about.

And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, a great amount of damage to the body politic has already been done by AI-powered social media which has polarised politics to an unprecedented degree. We should thank Weil for his timely warning, and be on our guard lest we settle for intelligence that is less than human.


What do you think of these observations regarding AI? Let us know your thoughts below.


This article has been republished, with permission, from his blog Engineering Ethics.

AUTHOR

Karl D. Stephan is a professor of electrical engineering at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. His eBook Ethical and Otherwise: Engineering in the Headlines is available in Kindle format and also in the iTunes store. 

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

‘We Will Be Relentless’: One. Simple. Trick … And Corporations Scramble To Kill ‘Divisive’ Diversity Policies

Robby Starbuck has been collecting scalps.

First came Tractor Supply Co. Then John Deere. Most recently, Coors scrapped their participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equity Index, a social credit score-style running tally of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) marks for publicly traded companies.

The corporations all dropped their participation in HRC’s index after Starbuck simply started highlighting them in public, amplifying complaints from internal whistleblowers to his massive X (formerly Twitter) following.

Harley Davidson, FordLowe’s and the parent company of Jack Daniels have all joined the ranks of companies that ended their participation in the index and committed to backtracking on woke corporate policies like deploying racial quotas, segregating employees into resource groups based on race and sexuality and celebrating pride events.

Each company announced the policy shift after Starbuck merely shined a spotlight on their practices.

“We’ve shown our teeth here. We’ve shown what we’re capable of. We’ve shown that we will be relentless when a company does not do the right thing, and that we will not stop, will not back down,” Starbuck, a conservative activist who focuses mostly on issues of family, told the Daily Caller.

The First Domino To Fall

Tractor Supply Co. was Starbuck’s first target after an internal whistleblower tipped him off to some of their HRC-compliant policies like providing LGBT and intersectionality training and sponsoring a “family friendly” drag show.

“I didn’t believe it until we vetted the information,” Starbuck told the Caller. “I go to Tractor Supply … I took my kids there every week,” Starbuck said.

But upon review, Starbuck found that the Brentwood, Tennessee-based farm supply company was engaged in things like selling the Queer Agenda card game on their website.

Starbuck released a seven-minute video detailing the company’s comprehensive compliance with the HRC’s index and their CEO Hal Lawton’s support for progressive causes in early June.

WATCH: ‘We Will Be Relentless’: Corporations Scramble To Kill ‘Divisive’ Diversity Policies

He included contact information for the company in the video. What happened next, he told the Caller, was the result of a grassroots campaign of thousands of the company’s customers calling and placing pressure on the company to drop their policies.

Three weeks after his video, Tractor Supply Co. released a statement detailing policy changes that included ending their submission of data to the Human Rights Campaign, eliminating DEI roles and DEI goals and a withdrawal of their carbon emission goals.

“This monumental change is thanks to all of you who supported my work exposing this, to the whistleblowers in Tractor Supply and my fellow farm owners who respectfully spoke up,” Starbuck wrote on X.

Others took notice. “Robbie Starbuck is a hero. He’s a one-man band,” Monica Crowley, a former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for the U.S. Treasury Department under President Trump, told the Caller.

“It’s perfectly within the American consumers’ right to understand and decide for themselves whether or not they want to support those companies with their hard earned disposable income,” Crowley said.

Starbuck replicated this model for other companies, continuing to use social media — X in particular — to highlight companies with a largely conservative consumer base for their woke policies.

“When I recognized that a company that depended on conservative consumers had fallen for this woke nonsense, I said they’re probably not the only one.”

Social Credit Scores For Business

The companies all announced they would stop sending data to the HRC, which had previously given many of them high scores on its Corporate Equality Index (CEI).

The CEI is a social credit score-like rating system that awards businesses up to 100 points on a scale that includes criteria like “nondiscrimination policies,” “equitable benefits for LGBTQ+ workers” and “supporting an inclusive culture,” according to their website.

The seemingly innocuous language stands in front of policies that, upon closer inspection, represent explicitly discriminatory policies like requiring companies to buy from suppliers with specific same sex preferences.

“82 percent of rated employers in this year’s CEI have supplier mandates with respect to non-discrimination in place, and 98 percent of these mandates (1105 of 1131 companies) explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity alongside other named categories,” the HRC touts on its website.

The index also encourages businesses to “provide education, training, and accountability measures on diversity and inclusion in the workplace.” The index specifically mentions the formation of LGBT employee resource groups and “diversity councils.”

“When a company offers ’employee resource groups’ to support workers of certain skin colors or ethnicities, it’s also unwittingly supporting a form of segregation by separating employees based on their immutable characteristics,” Monica Harris, the Executive Director at the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR), told the Daily Caller. “When employers separate people who are supposed to work together, it’s not inclusive; it’s divisive,” she said.

Before breaking with the HRC, some of the businesses courted high scores on their index by setting targets for hiring specific percentages of employees of different racial heritage.

John Deere said they aspired to increase black hires by 85 percent, hispanic hires by 61 percent and Asian hires by 10 percent, according to company documents obtained by Starbuck.

John Deere also apparently tied employee bonuses and pay raises specifically to DEI performance, writing in their 2022 Sustainability report that “DEI is the only global behavioral performance metric upon which salaried employees are evaluated,” according to Starbuck.

They also encouraged employees to snitch on each other. In July, their mandatory code of conduct included a pledge to “report any diversity, equity, or inclusion-related concerns to a manager … ” a screenshot Starbuck took of the code of conduct shows.

John Deere dropped their participation in the HRC’s index after their stock price reached a one-year low and announced it would stop its participation in “social or culture awareness parades, festivals, or events,” following Starbuck’s campaign.

HRC has pushed back against the companies’ rejection of their index in a big way, noting that they would still be indexing companies that choose not to send them data. Their website landing page now has a large graphic highlighting Ford and other companies that rejected their index and says “This Isn’t Just Policy. It’s Personal. Millions of hardworking Americans and their families count on these companies.”

They’ve also returned fire on Starbuck, starting their own pressure campaign against him.

“They’re doing a text and email campaign against me right now,” Starbuck told the Caller. “It’s silly, but in a weird way they’re actually helping me, and I don’t think they realize it. They called me a MAGA weirdo. You’re only proving my point to these major companies that you are a partisan actor. You just said MAGA weirdo. So that means anybody who believes in MAGA that shops in one of these stores at these Fortune 500 companies is going to be thinking, ‘Why are they partnered with a group that calls people who think like me a MAGA weirdo?’”

Many of the companies mentioned the HRC by name in their announcement in policy shifts. A Ford spokesman said their CEO Jim Farley did so because it was the group their employees asked about the most often, according to The Wall Street Journal.

HRC’s President Kelley Robinson said in a statement the decision “will hurt the company’s long-term business success, from employee retention to consumer decisions about how they will spend their dollars.”

Starbuck, however, disagrees.

“If DEI and wokeness were making these companies money, and nobody on my end was making them feel pressure, these companies would not change policy,” he told the Caller.

Some experts note that these extremes are not the only way to go about building an inclusive workspace. Before the DEI craze, companies centered their diversity efforts along non-racial lines like differences in class, geography, religion and political perspective, Harris told the Daily Caller.

“My sense is that companies adopting aggressive, discriminatory DEI policies are out of sync with the current racial landscape in our country, but they don’t realize it,” Harris told the Caller.

“They’re being advised to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Does racism still exist in America? Unquestionably, yes. But unlike 60 years ago, race no longer defines the experience of black or white Americans. Increasingly, class, not race, is what’s causing system inequities. As a society, we’ve made tremendous progress in race relations that is being minimized and even ignored and, sadly, many DEI programs lean hard into this distortion of our racial reality,” Harris said.

American corporations spend a pretty penny on DEI training, over $8 billion, according to a review by Harvard’s Iris Bohnet. A McKinsey analysis predicts that number to nearly double by 2026.

While companies are incredibly secretive about the specific figures they spend on DEI initiatives (both Starbuck and the Daily Caller have conducted extensive reviews of HRC-indexed company financials and have been unable to find concrete figures), American educational institutions publicly spend millions on their efforts.

A January analysis by University of Michigan professor Dr. Mark J. Perry found the school was spending over $30 million in salary for employees “whose main duties are to provide DEI programming.”

A 2021 report by the Jefferson Council found the University of Virginia was spending almost $7 million yearly for their DEI efforts.

“I Felt Like I Was Sinning”

Rather than driven by financial motives, the DEI initiatives, incubated at the HRC, are pushed upon companies by their human resources and public relations departments, a nerve center Starbuck likens to “tumors.”

“Those two departments worked in tandem to convince executives you needed to do this or you were going to look racist,” Starbuck told the Caller.

An HR initiative at one of the companies Starbuck took down, Harley-Davidson, apparently encouraged employees to read the book “White Fragility” by author Robin DiAngelo, which among other things, claims “a white supremacist worldview” is “the bedrock of society.”

Other companies encouraged employees to sign LBGT ally pledges. Employees felt pressured to sign the pledges, telling Starbuck they felt they might be fired if they didn’t.

“I thought I would be fired if I didn’t do it. I’m a Christian. I felt like I was sinning by doing it,” Starbuck told the Caller, echoing an employee’s sentiments.

Harley-Davidson even sent white male employees to white male only diversity training, according to Starbuck.

The HR and PR departments are the “nerve center” of these movements, with the CEOs of the companies often wholly unaware of the radical takeovers, Starbuck said.

“They said, ‘Honestly, I watched the video you sent us, and I was shocked. I didn’t know this was going on,’” Starbuck said of some executives he’s spoken to. “‘It’s a real wake up call,’ is the term he used. There were things that were being done that he just didn’t know. He had kind of lost control of a certain department of people, and their ability to just do certain things without him ever knowing about it.”

Outside of the CEOs, many of the companies’ corporate leadership and executive class are simply out of touch with their consumer base, Crowley told the Caller.

These executives tend to all come from the same socioeconomic and educational class, Crowley said.

“There’s tremendous peer pressure to toe the social justice line, policy line, because their social group is all doing it, and that if they refuse to do it, that somehow they would be ostracized from their social group, their economic group, their fellow CEOs,” Crowley said.

Wilfred Reilly, a professor of political science at Arkansas State University, concurred with Crowley’s assessment.

“The root issue here is a total disconnect between an Ivy League and Big 10 educated executive class and hard workers at their own companies … regular Americans who buy motorcycles, heavy equipment and Bud Light,” Reilly told the Caller.

The HR and marketing departments, Starbuck told the Caller, are often spearheaded by young, radical leftists who attach to pseudo-Marxist ideology in college and infect the companies with it.

“The belief system coming out of a lot of colleges that folks have … They think it is their job to inject this stuff into the DNA of a company. Those folks, in many ways, use the fear of CEOs after George Floyd against them to create a lot of the space for wokeness in the workplace, and then it takes on a life zone. It becomes a disease that spreads to every part of the company’s body. And I would say what we’re doing is something akin to removing the tumor.”

While Starbuck has been able to declare victory over many of the companies, he’s not stopping. He has thousands of whistleblowers in his inbox ready to expose more of the over 500 companies who the HRC lists in their index.

“If they were able to shift the Overton window that fast, I realized we could do the same thing by waking up companies to where their customers are,” he told the Caller.

The majority of the companies he’s gone after so far have had largely conservative consumer bases, but Starbuck says it doesn’t have to be solely right-leaning companies who feel the heat.

“If conservatives even just make up 20% of your customer base, you really can’t afford to do things that are just openly sort of discriminatory toward them or violating their values in some way,” Starbuck said.

AUTHOR

Robert McGreevy

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bush, Bowman, Gay, Kendi. All Disintegrated. Their Commonality? Woke Acolytes Are On The Run

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

Is the Constitution ‘Dangerous’?

Is the Constitution hazardous to our nation? According to the New York Times it is. At least, that’s what the Times’ book critic Jennifer Szalai postulates in her recent article, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?

She writes, “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”

She writes of Trump’s presidential victory in 2016 as Exhibit #1: “Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.”

And she continues, “After all, Trump became president in 2016 after losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College (Article II). He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III), two of whom were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population (Article I). Those three justices helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a reversal with which most Americans disagreed.”

Once again, the left takes out its big guns against the Electoral College. But they seem to lack a basic understanding of American Civics 101. By design, the founders did not give us a pure democracy—which they viewed as dangerous, potentially leading to mobocracy.

The Constitution empowers “we the people” through our elected representatives. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution deals with the electoral process. To sum it up: We don’t directly elect the president, but we vote for those who do. In all this, the Constitution provides a layer of protection—sparing us from would-be tyrants.

In my Providence Forum documentary on the Constitution, We The People, guest Dennis Prager of PragerU remarks: “The Electoral College was a brilliant innovation of the founders, because they didn’t want a democracy, they wanted a republic. ‘…and to the republic for which it stands.’ It’s in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a republic. And it’s not a pure democracy, So, there’s a check on the popular vote by the states, and that’s why they have the Electoral College.”

James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, notes in Federalist #10 that we have a republic, not a “pure democracy,” which “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

Without the Electoral College, the big cities and big states would always determine who would become the president. The Constitution thus protects the interests of those in the minority, who live in less populous states and cities. Small towns in Vermont were never meant to be ruled by majorities from California.

Tara Ross is the author of The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule and Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.

She once told me, “Our Constitution creates a government that is a blend of democracy (self-governance), republicanism (deliberation and compromise), and federalism (national versus state authority) because our Founders sought to ensure that the American government reflects all voices, despite our diversity and despite the varying sizes of our states. The Electoral College is a reflection of these principles and simply ensures that large states and urban areas don’t tyrannize the rest of the country when it comes to selection of the President.”

The framers gave us a very stable government, built on our two key founding documents, the Declaration of Independence (1776)—which says our rights come from God and are therefore inalienable—and the Constitution (1787), which explains how this government is supposed to work. Both documents reflect a strong Judeo-Christian worldview.

The Constitution is predicated on the notion that human beings are sinful. The Scriptures repeatedly refer to man’s sinful nature. As the late Dr. Walter Williams, professor at George Mason University, noted in our We The People documentary: “The founders did not believe in the goodness of mankind. That is, they say men were not angels, and this is why we need government.”

Indeed, Madison argued in Federalist #51: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed: and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Since 1787, while many nations have undergone revolutions and tempestuous changes and different governing documents, our country under the Constitution has endured because it’s based on a realistic assessment of man’s base nature.

To obliterate the Constitution would be like obliterating a strong dam—potentially unleashing rushing floodwaters of death and destruction. Those who want to change the Constitution don’t realize the kinds of evil and mayhem they could end up ushering in. History is filled with examples that showcase the law of unintended consequences.

©2024.   All rights reserved.

‘He Spoke Facts’: Some Key Swing-State Voters On Corporate Media Panels Praise Trump, Criticize Harris

Some Pennsylvania voters on CNN and CBS News panels praised former President Donald Trump’s Tuesday debate performance while criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris.

Harris and Trump went head-to-head in their first debate on ABC News, with the race still neck-and-neck. While most voters on the corporate media panels in the crucial commonwealth leaned toward Harris post-debate, two individuals from each segment explained their support for Trump.

WATCH: PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS: Praised Trump and Criticized Harris, ‘He Spoke Facts’

“He spoke facts. She just basically repeated everything that Biden has said in the past,” a female voter, who said Trump won the debate, asserted on CBS.

“Donald Trump made a strong closing statement by saying, ‘Why didn’t they do all of the things she’s proposing during the three-and-a-half years that they were in office?’ And Biden did this entire moderate stance back in 2020. And she’s trying to do it again in 2024,” said a male voter on the panel, who also asserted Trump won the debate. “But she didn’t talk about her policy changes between 2020 and 2024. Her whole centrist moderate stance is just a façade.”

WATCH: 

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis provided Harris an opportunity to address her numerous policy changes, but the vice president instead used her time to discuss her “values” rather than explaining her shifting stances.

The male voter later commended Trump for trying to discuss illegal immigration while alleging Harris “deflected” instead of  addressing the issue.

WATCH:

A female voter featured on the CNN panel who was undecided before the debate and now believes Trump won the face-off said she was unsure of whether she can trust Harris’ assertions that she can solve the issues that Americans have experienced during her administration.

“I think it’s important to remember that we are voting for the leader of our country and not who we like the most or who we want in our wedding party, but who is actually going to make our country better. And we’re in an incredibly unique situation where we’ve had both of the candidates in office before, and we’ve gotten to see what they would do and when facts come to facts, my life was better when Trump was in office,” she said. “The economy was higher, inflation was lower, things were better overall. And now with Kamala’s administration, things haven’t been so fantastic. And she’s saying she can fix the problems that her administration has caused, but I just don’t know if I can afford to take that risk.”

A male military veteran on the panel who is still undecided after the debate, but also asserted he thinks Trump came out on top explained why he appreciated the former president’s answer on the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.

“When I first heard that we were abandoning or we were withdrawing from Afghanistan and the way it was happening, I had my Kennedy moment. It was very similar to when we decided to invade Iraq back under President Bush,” he said. “And when I saw that we were leaving, that amount of high tech equipment in the hands of our enemy, and later that that day or later that week, I saw on the news where them celebrating with our guns in their hands. I realized what a travesty that was … in the loss of money in that we abandoned when we left. Plus the very bullets that we left there that they were shooting at us as we flew away in the plane.”

AUTHOR

Jason Cohen

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Kamala Harris Used To Think Border Wall Was ‘Un-American.’ Now She Supports It.

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.

EXCLUSIVE: Heritage Launches Personal Inflation Calculator Any American Can Use After Debate Night

The Heritage Foundation launched an inflation calculator Monday to help Americans calculate how much prices have risen on their personal expenses, the Daily Caller learned first.

Myinflation.com,” created by the Heritage Foundation, first asks Americans to pick which subregion of the country they live in before entering their monthly expenses, according to a preview of the website shared with the Daily Caller. Americans can then enter a variety of monthly expenses including their rent, mortgage, car payments and health costs, and the calculator will tell them how much more they are spending under the Biden-Harris administration compared to the Trump administration. 

“Why is the inflation calculator useful now? Because when you get this update from the government on the consumer price index, it’s an abstract number. Most people are seeing reports that inflation is coming down, and they’re not able to connect that to the cumulative change in prices that’s happened over the past four years,” Parker Sheppard, director of the center for data analysis at the Heritage Foundation, told the Caller.

“This is a tool that takes something that is in the abstract, it’s not as tangible when it’s in a percentage term, and it puts it in dollar figures, it lets people see something customized to exactly what they’re spending. It’s not the average bundle, which is what the CPI cost calculates. They can get something tailored specifically to their spending habits, instead of just how much extra it costs them to buy the same goods and services,” he added.

On the website, previewed by the Daily Caller, the Heritage Foundation explains that it created the tool to help Americans understand “just how much more the government has taken” from Americans through its reckless spending. The Heritage Foundation writes on its website that its users are seeing an increase in prices because “the government is spending and printing more money.”

The Heritage Foundation’s inflation calculator is going live the morning after the first presidential debate between Trump and Harris where economic policy — a top issue for voters — was touched on just once in the first 45 minutes of the debate.

More than a month into her presidential campaign, the vice president failed to unveil a full policy platform until Monday. Harris did discuss her economic platform ahead of the “issues” tab being added to her campaign website.

Harris touted her economic plan during her first and only sit-down interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.

“Well, there are a number of things. I will tell you first and foremost one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class,” Harris began.

“Day one, it’s gonna be about one, implementing my plan for what I call an opportunity economy. I’ve already laid out a number of proposals in that regard, which include what we’re gonna do to bring down the cost of everyday goods, what we’re gonna do to invest in America’s small businesses, what we’re gonna do to invest in families,” the vice president continued after being further pushed by Bash.

Bash then followed up by asking Harris why she hadn’t implemented any of the economic policies she has introduced, despite being in office for the last three years.

“Well, first of all, we had to recover as an economy, and we have done that,” the vice president said.

“I’m very proud of the work that we have done that has brought inflation down to less than 3%, the work that we have done to cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors. Donald Trump said he was going to do a number of things, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Never happened. We did it,” she continued.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House, Dems Abandon Promoting ‘Bidenomics’

Trump Frenzies As Kamala, Moderators Throw Chum In The Water

‘Squandered The Moment’: Washington Post Editorial Board Blasts Kamala Harris’s Economic Rollout As ‘Disappointment’

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

Pastor Hamrick: ‘Get Over Looking for the Most Perfect Person’ and ‘Vote for the Better Choice’

The phrase “separation of church and state” is widely misunderstood. Often, it’s raised as an argument against Christians who engage in politics. Yet, the separation of church and state is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution nor any founding documents. Rather, it can be found in a personal letter penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. In the name of religious freedom, Jefferson wrote not that the church should stay out of government affairs, but that government affairs have no place interfering with the church.

In his 2024 election sermon, Cornerstone Chapel Senior Pastor Gary Hamrick explained how in our country’s history, “[T]he church has always played … a critical role in speaking out about faith and politics and how faith should shape our politics.” Over time, he acknowledged, “Jefferson’s phrase [concerning the] separation of church and state … letter has been used to remove God from the public square and to remove church from government influence.” Rather than protecting our First Amendment rights, those in opposition have sought to intimidate “a lot of pastors from addressing things that are referred to as political in the pulpit.”

But as believers, we can’t afford to allow these tactics to push us back into the shadows of fear. Consider Jesus’s words from Matthew 5:13-16:

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

Our Lord could not have been clearer: we are meant to be seen, and we are meant to have an impact. That’s what it means to be salt and light. Some Christians believe this truth, except when it comes to politics. In light of this, Hamrick half-joked, “Please save the emails accusing me of being political.” Because in all seriousness, “I’m not being political.” What the pastor went on to contend is the very truth all believers need to engrain into their minds: to discuss policy and government affairs is not to “be political.” It is simply a matter of biblical obedience.

According to Hamrick, Christians have to understand “that the culture has hijacked the narrative on social and moral issues” in order to gloss over the fact “that the Bible has already addressed” them all. “[T]he culture has twisted … distorted and perverted those social and moral issues into political issues” to deter people of faith from speaking out about them. And to this, the pastor underscored, “I have news for our culture: God had a say on all these subjects long before there was even a word ‘political.’”

He continued, “God had the first word long before anybody. And so, it’s important to understand we’re just talking about the biblical issues, and we’re looking at what is happening in our culture, and especially on the presidential election level” to be salt and light through our voting and other political engagement. “[I]f Christians would come together and vote their values,” Hamrick stated, “we could change America.”

As Hamrick made clear, the church needs to “be equipped to know who to vote for or who not to vote for, based on whether that candidate’s policies more closely align with biblical values.” In doing so, believers are not to “look to a person to save us,” because “our faith is not in a political hero.” Instead, we reflect on the reality that “our faith is in the Savior,” Jesus Christ, and “He is our only hope for America.” Hamrick went on to emphasize that “we have a moral obligation to represent Christ as ambassadors, and one way to do this is through politics.

“[B]y political engagement,” he added, “I mean advocating for policies that promote righteousness, voting for candidates who most closely represent our biblical values, praying for our elected leaders and holding them accountable, and even running for elected office” if God calls one to do so. Because ultimately, “if Christians do not stay politically engaged … what will fill the vacuum” other than “every evil demonic practice”?

Hamrick said it well when he observed that while “good government cannot save us,” bad government can certainly harm us. With the upcoming election in mind, he then posed the question: “What can we do to advance the kingdom of God for the glory of God, and to stem the tide of evil in our land until Jesus comes?” Considering this question, there’s one crucial thought to keep in mind during a time of political mayhem: there will never be a perfect candidate on the ballot. Even so, “God uses flawed, sinful people.”

According to Hamrick, his major concern is not that Christians don’t want to do the right thing and use their vote, but that they won’t vote for any “candidate who doesn’t have the total package.” This mindset, he went on to explain, is dangerous.

“I understand elections are serious things with serious consequences,” he said. And yet, “what other decisions do you make in your life that must meet 100% of the criteria?” What other decisions do we choose to only move forward with if they meet 100% of what we want? The truth is, if we’re to probe this question, most of us will find that we “don’t make a decision based on 100%. … Nothing is 100% based on certain criteria.”

Consider your spouse, job, church, house, or school. Do any of these areas meet every single one of your expectations? Would you consider any of them to be absolutely 100% perfect? For the vast majority, chances are the answer is no. And that’s because, as the pastor contended, there is “no perfect spouse. There’s no perfect church. There’s no perfect child. There’s no perfect job. There’s no perfect neighborhood. And … there is no perfect candidate.” Jesus Christ is the only Being who is perfect. And if we want to make progress in advancing the gospel in all areas of this life, we have to “get over looking for the most perfect person” and start voting “for the better choice.”

To hammer this point home, Hamrick took time to emphasize the many examples of imperfect leaders Scripture has to offer. For instance, “David was a righteous leader” and “a man after God’s own heart. But he committed adultery.” Yet, God still used him. Hezekiah, another righteous king, “had terrible foreign policy that also incurred the wrath of God as a national judgment.” Yet, God still used him. And Samson, who’s mentioned in the Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith, had “a weakness for women.” Yet, God still used him.

“I’m not making excuses for their bad behavior or their sin,” Hamrick clarified. “They all paid consequences for their sin.” But “my point is that God uses flawed people to promote good policies for a nation. You see it all through the Bible.” This is also true of the way God uses the unrighteous, such as King Nebuchadnezzar, to “put it on their hearts to do righteous things for Israel and for the Jewish people.” In the Bible, God used “unrighteous kings” to establish policies “that promoted good for the benefit of the nation,” and He can do the same today.

“Please stop looking at the person and look at their policies,” Hamrick pleaded. Because, looking at it in black and white, the choice can become easier. “On a personal level,” he noted, “I’d rather have a mean orange man who gave us three Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade than a joyful hen who believes in killing babies in the ninth month.” Ultimately, “[W]e have to stop focusing on who’s a good candidate, because Jesus said in Luke 18:19, ‘No one is good except God.’” If we take this at face value, then we can finally understand “there is no good candidate.” But God being God means He can use anyone “to accomplish His good purposes.”

So, as we move closer to the election, Hamrick suggested we consider these seven top issues as we determine who is the better candidate: judicial nominees, border security, Israel, religious liberty, biological sex, family, and life. All these topics, and more, have already been addressed within the pages of Scripture. And as we analyze them, the pastor urged us to remember that voting is “not just a right and a privilege. It’s a duty.” Silence is simply not an option.

Consider the fact that “God entrusts a lot to us,” Hamrick emphasized. “[O]ne of the things He has entrusted to us is the wonderful privilege as Americans of living in the greatest and freest country in the world. … He’s entrusted this freedom to us.” And so, we have to ask, “[W]hat are we going to do with what He’s entrusted to us? … Because if we do nothing, if we check out, if we remain silent, evil will rush into the vacuum.”

Even this pastor, as passionate as his sermon was, noted that, concerning this upcoming election, he’s “not an enthusiastic voter.” Yet he asserted nonetheless, “I’m going to vote.”

He referenced the words of Frederick Douglass, who said, “I will unite with anyone to do right and no one to do wrong.” And even in these times, there are numerous groups and people Christians can fight alongside to do what is right. With this, Hamrick concluded: “Until Jesus comes, get out there [and] vote. Be His ambassadors. Be salt and light in this world and advance the kingdom of God for the glory of God to stem the tide of evil in our land until Jesus comes. Let your voices be heard. Let your votes be counted, and let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: NYC Boy looks up a Trump and says, “President Trump, make America great again!”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


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.

Harris Supported Taxpayer-Funded Trans Surgeries in 2019, Called ‘Transition Treatment … a Medical Necessity’

The Kamala Harris campaign kept her policies (and person) away from the mainstream media for so long that the media went snooping through the past. On Monday, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski first reported Harris’s support for taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries on federal prisoners and detained illegal immigrants, revealed in a candidate questionnaire she filled out for the ACLU during her abortive 2019 presidential campaign.

On the questionnaire, Harris marked the “yes” box in answer the following question: “As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”

The questionnaire also allowed candidates to explain their answer in 500 words or less. In the space provided, Harris wrote, “It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates.”

She continued, “I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.”

“This questionnaire is really an interesting snapshot-in-time of that 2019 Democratic primary,” said Kaczynski. “Kamala Harris was trying to get to the left of [Independent Vermont Senator] Bernie Sanders. She was trying to get to the left of [Massachusetts Democratic Senator] Elizabeth Warren, and you really see that in a lot of these answers.” In a now-archived ranking, GovTrack.us rated Harris as the senator with the most liberal voting record in 2019.

Some snapshots can be consistent across time, as this one appears to be. Harris’s 2024 campaign finally published a page on policy issues on the eve of the one-and-only presidential debate (to quote Edna Mode, “Coincidence? I think not”). In a section on “fundamental freedoms … at stake in this election,” the Harris campaign touted their candidate’s record of LGBT advocacy as far back as 2004.

In particular, the Harris campaign said their candidate would “fight to pass the Equality Act to enshrine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ Americans in health care, housing, education, and more into law.” This extends the continuity because, as a senator in 2019, Harris was an original cosponsor of the Equality Act. While the campaign website elaborates no further, this far-reaching legislation would “virtually do away with sex-segregated spaces” by allowing “biological men into women’s private spaces,” Family Research Council director of Federal Affairs for Family and Religious Liberty Mary Beth Waddell warned in 2019.

This means that, under the Equality Act, male prisoners who identify as women would have a statutory right to be housed in a women’s prison, wrote Abigail Shrier. This is already law in Harris’s native California, where at least 47 biological males, including violent criminals and sexual offenders, were housed in women’s prisons, as of March 2023. Harris’s pledge to provide gender transition procedures to trans-identifying prisoners at taxpayers’ expense not only implies such a permissive housing policy, in which inmates get to self-define their gender, but it takes it one step further by placing the state’s endorsement behind their gender transition.

While Harris’s policy-light campaign has not explicitly reaffirmed her 2019 endorsement of taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for trans-identifying prisoners, its brief comments are consistent with that position. Fellow Senate progressive Sanders said Sunday that Harris was not “abandoning her ideals” but merely “trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.”

Even if Harris wanted to change her mind, the transgender lobby would not let her. This summer, left-wing activists poured out their wrath against the Biden-Harris White House over a statement softly opposing gender transition surgeries for minors. The administration quickly folded to the pressure and backpedaled from that position to appease the transgender lobby. If Harris became president, nothing in her record suggests that she would respond differently to pressure from the transgender lobby.

In her 2019 questionnaire, Harris also promised to provide taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries to detained illegal immigrants. However, at the rate the Biden-Harris administration is releasing detained immigrants into the U.S., this seems like a moot point. It would be rendered even further irrelevant if Harris fulfilled another pledge from her 2019 questionnaire, namely to “end … immigrant detention facilities.”

Also in 2019, Harris also pledged to codify abortion-on-demand, “eliminate the Hyde amendment,” “legalize marijuana,” end cash bail, defund ICE, provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and oppose legislation to impede or prohibit anti-Israel protests.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


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.

The 10 Kamala Harris Lies Moderators Let Slide at the ABC News Debate

Presidential debates have often been compared to professional wrestling matches, but the ABC News debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris more closely resembled a handicap match, with Trump taking on three opponents at once: Harris and both moderators. As “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir and ABC News Live “Prime” anchor Linsey Davis regularly fact-checked Trump in real time, they allowed Harris to get by with numerous evasions and false statements on such issues as late-term abortions, post-birth executions, government pregnancy monitors, the economy, and haggard canards about “very fine people” at Charlottesville.

Here are a few of Kamala Harris’s misstatements that the ABC News moderators let her get away with.

1. Late-term abortion is a myth?

Kamala Harris attempted to deny President Trump’s charge that the Democratic Party supports late-term abortion by denying such abortions take place. “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion,” Harris dodged.

In reality, 21 states allow abortion until birth: Six states have no legal limit protecting unborn children, and the rest allow abortion after the point of viability thanks to a vague and expansive “health of the mother” exception.

Late-term abortions are well-documented. In 2022, pro-life advocates found the remains of five babies whom abortionist Cesare Santangelo aborted late in their term or possibly after birth at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Washington, D.C. The Biden-Harris Justice Department advised the District of Columbia to destroy the evidence.

“In 2013, New Mexico abortionist Shelley Sella faced medical board sanctions after she committed an abortion on a child at 35 weeks,” reports Carole Novielli of Live Action. “In 2003, abortionist Charles Rossmann gave abortion pills to a woman who was past 30 weeks.” Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque’s website advertised that “abortion services are available through 32 weeks. Exceptions after 32 weeks are provided on a case-by-case basis.”

1981 Philadelphia Inquirer article documented that, in abortion facilities, “unintended live births are literally an everyday occurrence,” but they are “hushed up” instead of treated as “a problem to be solved.”

More than 56,000 abortions took place after 21 weeks, according to the most recent CDC report.

2. Abortions after birth don’t happen?

The issue of infanticide cropped up during the debate, as President Donald Trump cited comments made by a former Virginia governor about allowing babies born alive during birth to die — a position Trump called “execution after birth.” Lindsey Davis responded to Trump’s comments on abortion by saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

It is true that during a 2019 interview, then-Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) said, if a baby is born alive during a botched abortion, “I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother” about the child’s future.

His comment was not an outlier. In 2013, a lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Alisa Lapolt Snow, testified before the Florida House of Representatives that even if a baby is alive, breathing on a table and moving, “We believe that any decision that’s made” about administering treatment to the newborn “should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician. … That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Whistleblowers have noted abortionists regularly allowed children to be born alive, then die by neglect. Jill Stanek, who served as a nurse at Christ Hospital in the Chicago area, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020:

“In the event a baby was aborted alive, he or she received no medical assessments or care but was only given what my hospital called ‘comfort care’ — made comfortable, as Governor Northam indicated. One night, a nursing co-worker was transporting a baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome to our Soiled Utility Room to die – because that’s where survivors were taken. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about the size of my hand.”

Some accounts are more gruesome. Multiple employees accused “Texas Gosnell” abortionist Douglas Karpen of twisting the heads off live babies after birth.

Yet the Democratic ticket has not lifted a finger to require infant lives be saved. In 2019, then-Senator Harris voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires abortionists to provide potentially lifesaving care to babies born during botched abortions. There is no federal requirement to provide medical care to an infant born during an abortion. As governor of Minnesota, vice presidential candidate Tim Walz signed a bill which removed a requirement that abortionists “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

Although only eight states currently require that the data be reported, official statistics show 277 babies were born alive during abortions. Pro-life advocates Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden survived botched abortions.

Only eight states require abortionists to report infants born alive during a botched abortion (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.). Two states — Tim Walz’s Minnesota and Gretchen Whitmer’s Michigan — repealed those requirements. Abortionists are not known as for being conscientious about reporting their own botched abortions.

Numerous Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to legalize “perinatal death,” which an official analysis confirmed would bring about the “unintended” legalization of infanticide.

Summing up the evidence, Family Research Council’s Mary Szoch said that the Democratic Party’s “attack on life begins at fertilization, but it continues throughout the entirety of pregnancy and does not even stop after the baby is born. Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz have actively worked to ensure that babies born alive following abortions do not receive the help that they desperately need.”

3. Pro-life protections prevent miscarriage care?

Harris repeated the lie that state pro-life protections prevent doctors from treating women suffering from miscarriages. Harris said she had spoken to women “being denied care in an emergency room, because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail.”

No pro-life law in the nation prohibits doctors from caring for miscarriages. Even Project 2025, which Harris repeatedly invoked as extreme, states, “Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.” Pro-life advocates blame confusion created by the abortion industry with causing doctors to deny women treatment. To help women’s health, the abortion industry should stop promoting that lie, they say.

4. Donald Trump would have the government monitor pregnancies and miscarriages?

Harris asserted that Trump would preside over the installation of a Big Brother-style surveillance of every pregnancy in America. “In his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion — a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages,” Harris said, without any moderator’s intervention.

This statement had been repeated at the Democratic National Convention, and the Harris-Walz campaign has claimed in TV spots that Trump has endorsed “requiring the government to monitor women’s pregnancies.”

But Project 2025 — which is not Trump’s platform — contains no such provision. Presumably, Harris is wrenching out of context its reasonable proposal that states report abortion statistics accurately. The Biden administration’s most recent annual report on abortion — known as the Abortion Surveillance — excludes statistics from four states including the most populous state: California, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Project 2025 calls on the federal government “to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.” The government would “ensure that [state] statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion.” That’s a far cry from a “government monitor” peeping in on women’s ultrasounds.

Even legacy media fact-checkers have denied this claim. FactCheck.org noted curtly, “Trump has not made such a proposal.” Reuters reported, “Fact Check: Project 2025 did not propose a ‘period passport’ for women.” Harris’s allegation “significantly overstates the nature of the monitoring called for in Project 2025,” reports USA Today.

5. National abortion ban?

“If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban,” claimed Harris. Trump removed the Republican Party platform’s historic commitment to passing a Human Life Amendment, aspirational as it was, and has repeatedly said he opposes any further national legislation on the issue. “It’s the vote of the people now,” Trump said at the debate.

6. Trump called for a ‘bloodbath’?

In one of the more egregious statements allowed to slip into public consciousness without any pushback, Harris falsely asserted that “Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.”

Trump used the economic term “bloodbath” while contrasting his tariff policy with the Biden-Harris administration’s pro-China electric vehicle policy during a March rally near Dayton, Ohio. “We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole” industry, he said. As this author noted at The Washington Stand:

“The term ‘bloodbath’ is regularly used in the financial sector to describe an industrial contraction. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists one of the definitions of ‘bloodbath’ as ‘a major economic disaster.’ … Democratic campaign operatives pounced on Trump’s use of the term ‘bloodbath’ to insinuate he wanted to foment a blood-drenched revolution if he lost the election. … The [then-]Biden campaign promptly wrenched the president’s remarks out of context to create a digital campaign ad titled ‘Bloodbath,’ which recycles other erroneous statements, such as falsely claiming Trump praised rioters at the Charlottesville and January 6 D.C. riots.”

ABC News moderators let the Democrat’s baseless allegation of revolutionary violence go unchecked.

7. Are Americans better off today than they were four years ago?

Muir opened the debate by asking Harris, “Do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?”

Harris responded, “So, I was raised as a middle-class kid” and spoke for two minutes about her economic plans, ignoring the question completely. Unlike numerous questions in which the moderators demanded an answer of President Trump, Muir asked no follow-up of Harris.

Harris boasts of being the tie-breaking votes for the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, which economists credit with setting off historically high inflation rates that exceeded 9%. The cost of a gallon of gasoline more than doubled during the Biden-Harris administration and is still $1.29 higher than the day President Trump left office. Staples such as groceries have risen nearly 20%, and new houses have more than doubled on her watch.

8. Project 2025 is Donald Trump’s plan?

Harris continually attempted to tie Trump to Project 2025, a now-inactive project of The Heritage Foundation, which the former president has repeatedly disparaged.

Trump replied, “I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” referring to its commonsense conservative proposals as “out there.”

“I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it,” he added.

The plan’s authors have acknowledged Trump had nothing to do with their conservative vision for the next four years. “Project 2025 is not affiliated with any candidate, and no candidate was involved with the drafting of the Mandate for Leadership, which was published by Heritage in April 2023,” Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for Project 2025, told CNN.

9. Trump praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists?

Kamala Harris repeated misinformation that, as president, Donald Trump praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. “Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing anti-Semitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were ‘fine people’ on each side,” Harris claimed.

In reality, Trump said, “You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” But Trump promptly stated, “And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. … There were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. … They had some rough, bad people — Neo-Nazis, white nationalists.”

“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,” because of Lee’s role as military leader of the Confederacy. But many Founding Fathers were also slaveowners. “Are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?” he asked. “You’re changing history. You’re changing culture.” Trump also pointed out the presence of Antifa protesters there to cheer on the tearing down of America’s historical monuments, who — unlike those opposed to tearing down U.S. history, did not have a permit to meet. “Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats. You got a lot of bad people in the other group, too.”

Even Snopes.com ran an article titled, “No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists ‘Very Fine People.’”

10. Trump is above the law?

Harris attempted to raise fears that President Trump would break the law with impunity in a second term. “The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again,” said Harris, while claiming Trump would weaponize government against his political enemies in a second term.

“The [p]resident enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the [p]resident does is official,” stated the court ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. “The [p]resident is not above the law.”

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. ©2024 Family Research Council.


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.

New York City’s Poorest Neighborhoods Forced to Bear the Brunt of Harris/Biden Migrant Crisis, Confidential Docs Reveal

“The city dropped a bomb on us.”

That is another way Kamala and Biden take care of their billionaire friends and donors.

They very thing she accused Trump of last night. That’s what they do, they accuse us of that which they are guilty of.

They know exactly what they are doing and they thing you are dumb enough for fall for it again and again and again.

NYC’s poorest ZIP codes forced to bear brunt of migrant crisis, confidential docs reveal

By Rich Calder and Georgia Worrell, NY Post, July 7, 2024;

Some of the Big Apple’s poorest ZIP codes are being forced to bear the greatest brunt of the city’s migrant crisis — including a Queens neighborhood saddled with more shelters than any other part of the five boroughs, internal data kept from the public but obtained by The Post reveal.

Long Island City is home to a staggering 23 government-run migrant shelters — 12% of the 193 operating in New York City, according to data tallied off a confidential list of shelter sites used by city agencies.

“The city dropped a bomb on us,” said Queensbridge Houses resident Danny Beauford, whose 11101 ZIP code includes a 24th shelter in neighboring Astoria. “The [migrants] are taking over. They’re taking over all the parking with their 8,000 scooters. They’re disrespectful — peeing in front of everybody. We do that one time, and we’re going to jail for a long time.”

Three of the top five most shelter-saturated ZIP codes — which cover parts of the Jamaica, Queens and East New York, Brooklyn— are among the poorest areas in New York City, with median incomes below $37,300, according to Data Commons.

A Post analysis of an internal list of active shelters used by city agencies as of June 25 also found:

Mayor Eric Adams’ office on Saturday told The Post the number of city shelters is now up to 217, but declined to reveal the additional locations.

None of the city’s 193 migrant shelters reviewed by The Post are located in the top five ZIPs by median income in New York City, which covers Tribeca, Battery Park City and other parts of Lower Manhattan, as well as Lincoln Square, records show.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden/Harris Criminal Illegal Alien Charged with Kidnapping Girl Walking to School in Virginia

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

The Best Debate Take

Donald Trump is, was and will always be Donald Trump. It’s why we love him. All this hand wringing, once again, about him not taking this opportunity to not be Donald Trump is just a recycle of a well worn smear.

“Harris came out calm, exceeded low expectations, repeated well her memorized talking points, avoided until the last 20 minutes her trademark word-salads, and repeatedly baited and incited an increasingly angrier Trump.” Yes, he got angry. I’m angry. What rational American isn’t angry? These evil clowns are whistling, cackling past the graveyard…..but those whose eyes have been opened are enraged.

As for ‘moving the dial,’ the left will never be moved to reason. It’s a mental illness. I’m sure you saw the clip of the parents whose young son was killed by a Haitian migrant who said they wish a white person killed him because it reflects badly on the migrants. This is beyond irrationality. It’s madness.

The takeaway from the debate is the media is the gravest threat to America. ABC moderators presented a Kafkaesque show of bias, one sided “fact checks” and debate rigging. Trump was debating the moderators not the flapping-tongued Harris. If they could have pulled a Crooks, they would have.

Victor Davis Hanson’s post debate analysis is spot on:

The Candy Crowley Debate

What do we remember, if anything now, about the second presidential debate of 2012?

Not whether Obama or Romney won.

But only how CNN’s Candy Crowley blew up her career and embarrassed CNN—by outrageously hijacking the debate, and as a partisan, fact-checking (and erroneously so) Romney in efforts to help Obama.

So, too, we won’t remember much of these debate details, given the shameful role of the two ABC moderators.

Harris came out calm, exceeded low expectations, repeated well her memorized talking points, avoided until the last 20 minutes her trademark word-salads, and repeatedly baited and incited an increasingly angrier Trump.

Harris called for unity, while smearing him as a racist and repeating the old lies about Charlottesville, “bloodbath,” the 2025 project, and Trump’s supposed support for a federal ban on abortion.

Trump might seem to have matched or beaten Harris if one only reads a transcript of the entire debate—given she never honestly would or could reconcile her past and antithetical present positions.

Nor could Harris explain why she simply did not implement her visions either the last three years or would do so in the next five months.

An irritated Trump started well and ended well; she in-between calmly and successfully at times baited and got Trump’s goat.

But all that will neither matter nor be recalled.

The debate will instead be remembered as a three-on-one pile-on, given the unprofessional and biased team of ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. Rather than refuting pre-debate fears that their past anti-Trump biases would warp the debate, they only confirmed them.

Both disrupted the tempo to fact check (sometimes in error), and to editorialize Trump’s statements, while letting Harris’s Charlottesville, IVF, national abortion ban, “bloodbath” or 2025 lies go unchecked.

Often their disruptive fact checks of Trump were simply wrong, such as their preposterous claim that no states allow partial birth or late abortions where the viable baby is terminated—when at least six states put no limitations on any abortions.

The questions addressed to Trump on January 6 were designed to provoke. They had no counterpart addressed to Harris—as for example, would she distance herself from Biden, or how she came to win the nomination without winning any elected delegates, or her last person in the room on Afghanistan boast, or if she wished to retract any of her inflammatory past statements, such as bragging that the deadly 2020 demonstrations would not and should not stop, or her tweets to help bail out violent 2020 rioters, or her lie that the border patrol whipped immigrants in the manner reminiscent of slavery and the Klan, or her boast that she was a radical and woke.

Instead, Muir and Davis only asked Trump about supposedly controversial past statements.

Harris was never reprimanded for trying to speak over Trump. Trump was reminded to address the question asked; not so Harris who rarely did.

Watching the entire debate may have aided Harris, given her low expectations. Yet the better sound bites in the next week may help Trump. But the moderators’ shameless bias may swing empathy toward Trump.

So, the real story was how ABC’s moderators ruined the debate, their own reputations, and their network’s brand.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Presidential Debate: 3 Against 1 – Majority Loses

FRACK YOU KAMALA!

Kamala Harris and Treason Unknown to the American Public

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

A Very Short List, and a Very Long Question

I was wondering, not exactly idly, where American foreign aid now is sent, and found online a list of the ten countries that receive the most aid from Washington. Here is that list.

In 2023, the United States spent nearly $61 billion on foreign aid. Fully half of that budget has gone to just ten countries:

  1. Ukraine ($16.4 billion)
  2. Israel ($3.3 billion)
  3. Ethiopia ($1.95 billion)
  4. Jordan ($1.65 billion)
  5. Egypt ($1.43 billion)
  6. Afghanistan ($1.19 billion)
  7. Somalia ($1.13 billion)
  8. Yemen ($1.05 billion)
  9. Congo ($987 million)
  10. Syria ($896 million)

Now I have no objection to aid for Ukraine, as it fights to push Putin’s troops out of the country. This unusually large sum — $16.4 billion, and much more so far in 2024 — far outstrips the amounts for the other recipients of aid. This aid only started to be given in 2020, after Russia invaded Ukraine, and it will not continue at anything like that level once that Ukraine-Russia war is over.

As for #2 on the list, I certainly do not object to the sums given to Israel, which for the fourth time in its young life is having to fight for its very existence (the previous wars were in 1948, 1967, and 1973) as it faces a seven-front war, with Hamas in Gaza, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with the Houthis in Lebanon, with Assad’s army in Syria, with assorted terrorist groups — Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — in Judea and Samaria, with the Shi’a militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, in Iraq, and looming behind them all, pulling the strings of these various proxies, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nor do I begrudge Ethiopia its aid, for that Christian country has endured several years of severe drought and internal conflict, including the war involving the Ethiopian central government and the northernmost region of Tigray. Ethiopia has once again become engaged in violent internal conflict, this time involving militia groups from the regions of Amhara and Oromia. And Ethiopia has long had a close relationship with the United States for many decades, beginning under the reign of Haile Selassie. The amount we provide is to help the government restore peace; as with the aid given to Ukraine, it isn’t intended to be a long-term commitment.

But. beyond that, I wonder. Of the seven remaining countries on the list of the top ten recipients, all but one are Muslim countries. Why are we transferring wealth to Muslim countries when the Arab states of the Gulf have trillions of dollars in their sovereign funds? Why do we not insist that the rich Arabs should be helping their brethren, instead of assuming that we should support Muslim states that, precisely because they are Muslim, cannot possibly be our friends (as the Qur’an directs them not to be; see suras 3:28 and 5:51)? Saudi Arabia has more than $1 trillion in its sovereign wealth fund. The UAE has even more: $1.7 trillion. In the first half of 2024 the sovereign wealth funds of five Gulf Arab states — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain — invested $39 billion. Surely they can spare $8 billion to provide to other Arab states, which is roughly the total the United States now gives to the seven Muslim states on the list above.

For reasons that deserve to be pondered, Anwar Sadat got the American aid ball rolling for Egypt with his “prince-of-peace” impersonation. And that money has continued ever since, despite the litany of human rights abuses in that country. Egypt need not be continuously bribed to keep the peace with Israel. What keeps the peace between Israel and Egypt is the IDF. If Egypt needs money, the Gulf states, whose monarchs share El-Sisi’s fear and hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood, should be happy to help.

Jordan, similarly, need not be given large sums by the Americans. The Hashemite king need only hold out his hand in Eleemosynary Position #1, and the Emirates and Saudis will be glad to help out a fellow monarch, especially one who doesn’t want to be overthrown by the two-thirds of his population that is Palestinian. That would be a dangerous example for the monarchs in the Gulf. King Abdullah, like the Saudi Crown Prince and the Emirati rulers, is prepared to repress the Muslim Brotherhood. He, too, needs no American bribe to keep the peace with Israel. The IDF maintains that peace.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kansas City, Kansas: Imam says that Jews have ‘now become cursed by Allah’

Hamas has made half a billion dollars from ‘humanitarian’ aid, pays jihadis

University of Michigan’s Black Student Union Cuts Ties To Anti-Zionist Group

Palestinian Authority Calls On UN to Remove 500,000 Israelis From Judea and Samaria Within Six Months

9/11 MIA at Debate

RELATED VIDEOS:

Spencer: Biden Regime Sent $10 Billion to Iran After Oct. 7.

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election and its Potential impact on Israel

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

Israel’s Foes Unfailingly Side with Left’s Antisemitic Allies

The 2024 Democratic National Convention has by now faded into the media’s rearview mirror. Yet one thing remains clear.

The major parties differ on the issue of Israel, that is, both in sentiment and substance.

This serves to underscore just how critical Nov. 5, 2024 (in the United States) is for the Jewish state.

Bastion of Anti-Jewish Sentiment?

The conduct of the Democratic Party at its recent convention underscores a doleful truth.

This is that, by-and-large, the party has become a bastion of animus towards the Jews — not only on the collective level vis-à-vis the Jewish state, but also towards the individual Jew, even American Jews.

Indeed, there is no other way to interpret what took place during the Convention, and before it it.

Thus, in large measure, the convention reflected the blossoming of the process initiated in 2009 by Barack Obama, when he intimated that distancing itself from Israel would benefit U.S. foreign policy.

True, some have attempted to “put lipstick on a pig” — downplaying the significance of incidents that underscore this trend and overplaying those that don’t. But the real point is not only the nature of the events that occurred, but the trend they represent.

Antisemitism as a ‘Point’

Although the convention did block a Palestinian speaker from addressing the convention, this was overshadowed by the fact that Jewish members were compelled to assemble in hiding to conduct Jewish-related affairs for fear of disruption by anti-Jewish mobs.

Indeed, one can only wonder what departing president, Joe Biden, had in mind when he conceded that the raucous pro-Hamas hooligans, outside the convention, “had a point” —in expressing their “outrage” at the IDF response to the murder and mutilation, the ravages and rapes of seniors and infants; men and women in the peaceful population of the towns, villages and agricultural communities in the Gaza Envelope.

The timing of this shift in sentiment seems particularly incongruous, coming as it does when the Palestinians seem more worthy than ever of censure/sanction, rather than support/sympathy.

Indeed, this is even more astounding since this hostility comes hard-on-the-heels, not only of unspeakable barbarity on the part of the Gazan Palestinians, but also the glee with which the appalling atrocities were celebrated by many Palestinians, in general.

Crucible, Not Victim

Moreover, it’s difficult to differentiate between the moral culpability of the general populace in Gaza and their elected leadership.

Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the overall population in Gaza is not the victim of its radical Hamas leaders.

Rather, it is the crucible in which Hamas was forged and the incubator from which it emerged.

Thus, Hamas is not an unwelcome imposition on an otherwise placid population, but an authentic reflection of its innermost desires.

But rather than side with Israel, the Democratic party and the Biden administration chose to take unprecedented measures against the elected government of an ally.

Thus, with cynical exploitation of his Jewish origins, Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, purported to know better than Israel’s electorate itself what is good for it.

In a desperate attempt to kowtow to his party’s increasingly radical wing, he accused the recently elected Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of being an “obstacle to peace,” calling for new elections to replace him — despite the fact that, even today, he’s the most popular politician in the country.

This, of course, is something Sen. Schumer would never have presumed to do with any other democratic ally of the U.S. — or even any non-democratic adversary. Thus, somehow, Schumer found no reason to urge removing any member of the brutal Iranian regime.

Pompous Pretentiousness

Even more perturbing is the initiative by Biden’s State Department to impose sanctions on rightwing Israeli citizens, and threaten sanctions on duly-elected Israeli ministers.

Stunningly, none of the sanctioned individuals/organizations have been accused — never mind, convicted — of any current transgressions by Israeli law-enforcement agencies.

With unmatched audacity, the administration pompously proclaimed, “The United States remains deeply concerned about [Jewish] extremist violence and instability in the West Bank, which undermines Israel’s own security” neglecting of course any mention of how Arab extremism might impact Israel’s security.

Then, arrogantly, it announced that if Israel does not comply, the U.S. will take it upon itself to deal with “recalcitrant” Israeli citizens — with no commensurate intentions regarding lawless Arabs, who regularly stone, firebomb, and shoot at Israeli citizens, We strongly encourage the government of Israel to take immediate steps to hold these individuals and entities accountable.

“In the absence of such steps, we will continue to impose our own accountability measures.”

Imagine the ensuing outcry should Washington threaten to intervene and supersede the functioning of national law enforcement authorities in any other country — especially if American citizens were not directly impacted by the action/inaction of those authorities.

Perverse, Paradoxical

Substantively, Democratic support for the Palestinian cause seems highly incongruous.

After all, for anyone who ostensibly embraces progressive-liberal values, there should be little attraction in the establishment of any Palestinian entity, especially a theocratic tyranny, such as a Hamas-ruled Gazan enclave.

Indeed, why would the party endorse establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be suppression of women, oppression of homosexuals, and repression of non-Muslims?

Clearly then, there is nothing that corresponds with the values the Democratic party professes to cherish, and the support for gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression that would characterize any self-governing Palestinian entity.

So, if the new surge of support for Hamas and Gaza is antithetical to values allegedly dear to the Democratic party, but is manifestly detrimental to the Jewish state, and by association, Jews who identify with it, what could be the motivation behind this malicious and malignant shift?

Antisemitism certainly seems a highly plausible answer.

This column originally appeared on ISRAPUNDINT.

©2024. Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.