Illegal Children Now Have Teachers But Americans Do Not

Teachers SNUB Own Students to Teach MIGRANT Kids as Homeschooling SURGES 300%!!!


San Diego Public School Teachers are SNUBBING Their Own Students to Teach MIGRANT Kids at the border, all as Homeschooling SURGES over 300%! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the glaring disparity in the way illegal immigrant children are being treated by teachers and how American students are getting treated, how such a glaring disparity is awakening a populist backlash like never before, and how we can see that backlash already happening in a mass exodus of students from our nation’s public schools; you are NOT going to want to miss this!


San Diego prioritizing teaching detained migrant minors over children within school district

Rumble — Illegal immigrants in California are receiving in-person education before hundreds-of-thousands of American students will re-enter the classroom. One America's Jasmin Hovey has more.

WH Spox Jen Psaki Struggles to Explain Why Illegal Migrants Get In-Person School in San Diego When American Kids Can't, Gets Ratioed on YouTube Again


Are You Ready To Get Your Mark/Passport?!?!

A British School Caves to the Muslim Mob A society on its knees.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A Religious Studies teacher from a school in Batley, England is now in hiding under police protection because he used an illustration of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as part of his learning materials in class. His family has also been forced into hiding with him for their safety.

The Muslim mob braying for his blood have blockaded the school gates, are actively inciting violence against the teacher in question, forcing the school to close and children to miss out on their education. A few of their number have posted a petition to have the teacher reinstated because they saw — first hand — that he was simply trying to teach them, not what to think, but how.

In response, the School Headmaster has prostrated himself on the ground in deference to the mob swarming at the gates, the police are reading and re-reading his endless apologies, and the teacher has been suspended pending investigation. Work will be the least of his concerns right now. His life and the lives of all those who are close face immediate threat.

Predictably, the British media are largely silent on the matter, preferring to prioritize other stories, or reporting with the kind of painful neutrality observed by Switzerland. And those who grift a living from "defending free speech" are mute, knowing their future income relies on their silence. They will try to protect what they have for just one more day — even though they will pay for their complicity in the end.

If pushed, you will hear supposedly Conservative politicians talking about "avoiding offense" or asking for "calm." These are the most centrist positions you can take when trying to say nothing and avoid the wrath of everyone.

Naturally, the left-wing politicians from the area are siding with the Muslim mob (because their power depends on these votes) and every Islamic organization from here to Mecca is piling on with their condemnation and demands for reparations. This is an Islamic show of strength in the heart of Britain.       

It is not as if it needed reinforcing.

In October 2020, Samuel Paty was beheaded close to his school after showing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad to his students. His killer, 18-year-old Abdullakh Anzorov, was shot dead by police shortly after the attack but seven other people, including two students and a parent of one of Mr. Paty's pupils, were detained in the days following the killing. This community works together to silence dissent.

And this evil will stop at nothing. The British teacher at the center of this nightmare will never have a life again. He will never leave his front door without wondering if he will be jumped, and he will live carrying the fear that one day one of his children will not get off the school bus at the end of the day, or that his partner will have acid thrown at her on the street.

I say this with certainty because I have lived it. It has been my truth also, every day for ten years since I became an outspoken critic of this religion of brutality. For some reason, I even feel grateful the two jihadists who plotted and practiced beheading me are in prison. I am never certain gratitude is what I should be feeling, but anger and indignation are not healthy bedfellows and are best left lie alone.

The cursory commentariat references the events at this one school in Batley with dispassion. But all of them are missing the more meaningful points of what is actually going on at this school and in the UK more generally.

Firstly, it is never about the individual involved. This is not about one school teacher or one illustration of Muhammad. When you want to make fundamental change against that which is reasonable, you make unreasonable demands and rush "status quo" with full force. You will not gain all the ground you were fighting for, but you make progress in a direction that is contra-normal or against freedoms of the many; for example, creating blasphemy laws in a secular country.

Britain badges itself as a secular society, but the reality is completely at odds with this thin veneer. The Muslim majority in our major cities are the most powerful influence in the UK today. De facto blasphemy laws are already in place; even reasonable observers on my social media feeds are questioning, "Why would you deliberately cause offense?" failing to see the error of their logic. What happens when being LGBT is an unreasonable offense? Should the UK only have single-story buildings erected for the future faced by the gay community here?

Fundamentally, Britain is being groomed to tolerate the intolerance of others. Because neither Islam nor those who practice it can be criticized, the intolerant beliefs held by many (both blockading the school gates in Batley and in wider British society) are also protected. When Muslim parents mounted an "It’s Not OK to be GAY" protest outside a school, replete with banners, loud hailers, and a truck bearing these words, nothing was said.

Eventually, the leftist lizard must eat its own tail. It will have to pick a side. Will the left choose the LGBT minority or the Muslim majority who hold the power? We know the answer to this already.

The UK is not a safe country for my Jewish friends or my LGBT peers. Demographics alone confirm this where Muslim births outnumber births to all other religions by 2035. But everyday events are highlighting the speed of our descent. De facto blasphemy laws already exist and are actively policed; soon they will be scribed into law.

No school teacher will ever go near this subject in any way ever again, not as part of a teaching exercise or discussion. The mob has achieved a direct victory by threatening the life of the man involved, and the country has accepted that violence dictates what can be taught in British schools in a supposedly secular country.

And yet again, white Christians have been forced to recognize their place in their own country, which is much diminished. If white Christian parents blockaded a school and demanded death to a teacher, I imagine the time between these utterances and a prison cell could be counted in mere minutes. At the school in question, the Muslim mob has a police force to protect them, and a society on its knees begging forgiveness for the offence caused. It is shaming to us all.

China issues new sanctions for U.S. officials and members of Canada’s parliament

To boycott or not to boycott? It’s a dilemma some Chinese sports associations are facing over footwear brand Nike. Hundreds of million-dollar contracts link them to the American brand.

Fashion brand Hugo Boss is dealing with trouble over cotton from Xinjiang. Its back-and-forth attitude has some calling the company “two-faced.”

Will the United States punish communist China over its lack of pandemic transparency? The U.S. Secretary of State appears hesitant to give details.

How do Chinese communist leaders approach the United States, and what are their plans to defeat it? A bombshell speech tells all.

DeSantis Nixes Idea of “Vaccine Passport” in Florida

DeSantis Nixes Idea of “Vaccine Passport” in Florida



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As the Biden administration considers a national “vaccine passport” system, which would make individuals prove that they’ve had the COVID-19 vaccine in order to enter certain public venues, Florida governor Ron DeSantis issued a very clear signal that no such “passports” would be welcome in his state.

On Monday, as the Florida Republican signed legislation designed to shield businesses from pandemic-related lawsuits, he referred to such a passport system as “completely unacceptable.”

While touting the state’s vaccination program, DeSantis also declared that no one would be forced to take the vaccine and that there has been no discussion of any vaccine mandate in the state.

“The flip side of that, though, with these vaccine passports, it’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of a vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society,” DeSantis said. “You want to go to a movie theater, should you have to show that? No. You want to go to a game, a theme park? No.”

DeSantis pointed out the civil-liberty concerns of such a system: “I think it’s something that people have certain freedoms and individual liberties to make decisions for themselves.”

The governor also cited privacy concerns: You’re going to [issue vaccine passports] and then what? Give all this information to some big corporation? You want the fox to guard the henhouse?”

Ultimately, DeSantis vowed to take action by an “executive function, emergency function” against any vaccine passport system and pressed the Republican-led state legislature to draft a bill forbidding such a system in the state.

Critics of DeSantis’ stance claim that a “ban” on vaccine passports tramples on the rights of private property owners who might wish to enforce their own system of allowing people in their business based upon their vaccination record.

Rabid anti-Trumper and former Republican Mac Stipanovich, a Tallahassee-based political consultant, called a ban on vaccine passports “ridiculous on its face.”

“Can you use your concealed weapons permit and walk onto a Disney property?” Stipanovich said. “Can you go into the Magic Kingdom carrying your gun? No … in Florida, the law allows you to have a permit but private property rights trump that. There are plenty of restaurants and bars and all sorts of businesses in Florida [which say], ‘No shoes, no shirt, no service,’ because that’s their private property. How the hell is Ron DeSantis going to tell Disney that they can’t require vaccination passports should they want to do so?”

Several countries, such as China and Denmark, have already instituted their own forms of vaccine passports.

Just yesterday, Japan announced that it will soon offer a digital vaccine passport that can be accessed by a smartphone app.

Israel has notably developed its own “green passports,” which are given to citizens who have been vaccinated for or recovered from the coronavirus. Some U.S. states such as New York are looking to emulate the Israeli example.

The United Kingdom and the European Union are considering similar measures, with the EU announcing an upcoming “Digital Green Certificate.”

Yesterday, health ministers from the globalist G7 group of countries discussed the idea of working together on a vaccine-passport system.

“The G7 partners agreed that there needs to be some consistency and some collaboration among the countries so that we have some kind of system that would be recognizable, no matter where a person was traveling,” said Canadian Health Minister Patty Hajdu.

And then, of course, there’s the Biden administration, which is said to be quietly working on a system of its own. Earlier this month, Jeffery Zients, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, signaled that such a program was being considered.

“As we increase the number of people vaccinated, we know some people may have a need to demonstrate that they are vaccinated,” Zients said.

DeSantis appears to be swimming against the stream on these so-called vaccine passports. Let’s hope he and other like-minded governors are strong swimmers.

All of these initiatives are aimed at getting economies “back to normal.” But there’s nothing normal about this — nothing at all. For the past year, we’ve been forbidden from entertaining friends and attending in-person events. We’ve been forced to wear uncomfortable masks and are shamed if we even consider not doing so. Now, Big Brother government wants us to show a “vaccination passport” in order to prove we’re not a threat to the general population.

‘Extremism’ Training Targets Conservatives in the Marines



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Opposing “extremism” in the military seems like a no-brainer. As First Liberty General Counsel Mike Berry testified, “those who would use, threaten, or advocate violence to accomplish their [political] objectives” should have no place in the ranks. Yet the military stand-down briefings meant to root out “extremism” in the military arguably set the stage for something far more sinister.

“We should reject any attempt to weaponize anti-extremism efforts against classes of people simply because those in authority disapprove of them,” Berry wisely warned. Sadly, the anti-extremism briefings that the Department of Defense pushed on military branches during the recent “stand-down” order are ripe for abuse — and the “anti-extremism” effort will likely translate into a political/ideological witch hunt against conservatives.

Any PJ Media reader familiar with my work knows that I have long covered the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which uses a vague and malleable definition of “hate group” in order to smear mainstream conservative and Christian organizations and place them on a list — and a “hate map” — with the Ku Klux Klan. This inspired an attempted terrorist attack in 2012 (which the SPLC rightly condemned, but which did not lead the SPLC to remove the targeted organization).

The SPLC defines a “hate group” as “an organization or collection of individuals that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. An organization does not need to have engaged in criminal conduct or have followed their speech with actual unlawful action to be labeled a hate group.”

The SPLC twists this definition, using it as a cudgel to defame its ideological opponents and to shame them into silence. A former spokesman explained that the organization’s “aim in life is to destroy these groups.” The SPLC accuses organizations that advocate for religious freedom or against the threat of radical Islamist terror of spreading “anti-LGBT” or “anti-Muslim” propaganda. In fact, the “hate group” definition is so malleable that the SPLC uses it to brand organizations that advocate against illegal immigration “anti-immigrant hate groups,” even though migration status is most certainly not an “immutable characteristic.”

The Marine Corps extremism materials are similarly vague and malleable. A “reference card” linked on the Marines extremism stand-down website warns marines that they “must not actively advocate for” “supremacist or extremist doctrine, ideology, or causes.” Yet the document does not actually define supremacy or extremism. The document bans marines from advocating for individuals or groups that advance “illegal discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, creed, ethnicity, national origin,” or that advance “the use of force, violence, or criminal activity or otherwise advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.”

Marines Stand Down extremism
Marines extremism stand down materials.

This vague definition of extremism opens the floodgates for political demonization. What does it mean to say that Marines cannot advocate for organizations that “advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights”? Which rights are in question? Can Marines advocate for gun control groups that want to weaken Americans’ civil right to gun ownership? Can Marines advocate for pro-life groups that seek to undermine a woman’s “right” to abortion under Roe v. Wade (1973)?

Many on the Left demonize conservative Christians who refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage or transgender identity, accusing them of “discrimination” that violates LGBT people’s “rights.”

Can Marines advocate for women’s shelters that do not allow transgender men who claim to be women? Can Marines support a religious freedom organization that defends a doctor’s right to refuse to remove a healthy gender-confused woman’s uterus? Under President Joe Biden’s executive orders on transgender identity, these organizations would “deprive individuals of their civil rights.”

Worse, the Marine Corps stand-down materials claim Marines have a “responsibility to report” their fellows. “If you observe a Marine or co-worker exhibiting concerning behaviors, you have a responsibility to report it through the chain of command or supervision to your local security manager, and/or directly to the Insider Threat program office.”

Marines extremism stand down materials.
Marines extremism stand down materials.

What constitutes a “concerning behavior”? If a Marine is chatting about giving money to a Catholic charity that opposes a woman’s “right” to abortion and a transgender person’s “right” to treatment according to his or her gender identity, does that constitute a “concerning behavior”?

Another side in the Marines stand-down materials encourages Marines to “report to your chain of command any observations of conduct that may be an indicator of active participation,” which “may lead to violence.” Examples of such indicators include “identification with or support for extremist or hate-based ideology” and “possession of extremist literature or paraphernalia.”

Marines extremism stand down materials.
Marines extremism stand down materials.

These terms appear dangerously vague. The SPLC has branded the gospel tracts organization Chick Publications a “hate group.” Does this mean that if a Marine has Chick tracts, he has “extremist literature,” and his fellow Marines should report him?

Biden DHS Issues Domestic Terror Alert Warning of ‘Objections’ to ‘Governmental Authority’

The Marines training also forbids certain posts on social media. “Do not post, share, re-tweet, ‘like,’ etc. any materials that promote discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity), creed, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation; or encourage violence to prevent others from exercising their civil rights.”

Yes, the materials explicitly ban Marines from engaging with any social media posts that “promote discrimination based on … gender identity.” Based on the Biden administration’s definition of civil rights law, this would mean any content that refers to biological males who identify as female with male pronouns, that advocates for excluding biological males from women’s sports, or that warns against the abuses of subjecting gender-confused children to chemical castration.

The “Social Media ‘Don’ts'” slide encourages Marines, “Do not tolerate actions by other Marines that violate these rules.”

Marines extremism stand down materials.
Marines extremism stand down materials.

In the name of fighting “extremism,” it seems the Biden administration is trying to weaponize the military in order to root out certain kinds of conservatives. This seems to be yet another part of the Democrats’ domestic “War on Terror” after the Capitol riot on January 6. Most conservatives rightly condemn the violence and lawlessness of the Capitol riot, but many Democrats seem to think that Trump supporters and other conservatives — former CIA Director John Brennan explicitly named “libertarians” — are potential violent extremists or “insurrectionists.”

Shortly after Biden took office, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a terror alert warning of “objections” to “governmental authority.”

As J. Christian Adams has noted, stand-down “extremism” materials have spread the idea that speech that “threatens to undermine our government” is not protected by the First Amendment, even though it is.

Secretary of Defense Loyd Austin also refused to define “extremism” in his video message regarding the training.

[EXCLUSIVE] Read the Shocking Pentagon Training Materials Targeting Conservatives in the Military

“I’m talking, of course, about extremism and extremist ideology, views and conduct that run counter to everything we believe in, and which can actually tear at the fabric of who we are as an institution,” Austin said. He argued that extremism in the military is not new, but “what is new is the speed and the pervasiveness with which extremist ideology can spread today, thanks to social media and the aggressive, organized, and emboldened attitude many of these hate groups and their sympathizers are now applying to their recruitment and to their operations.”

He warned that extremism would “harm and harass and otherwise violate the oath that we share,” referring to the oath soldiers take to join the military.

When most Americans hear about “supremacy” and “hate groups,” they would think of “white supremacy” and the Ku Klux Klan, a true hate group if ever there was one. Yet the SPLC has demonstrated the malleability of this language and the way that vague terms can be twisted to demonize conservatives.

Conservative members of the military need to be on their guard. Some enterprising leftist beside them in the ranks may be watching for any sign of wrongthink regarding transgender identity, abortion, or other hot-button issues. These vague guidelines open the floodgates for complaints about support for conservative Christian organizations, charities, and even churches in the interest of rooting out “extremism.” Even a well-intentioned Facebook post may land a Marine in hot water.

Is this really how America treats the brave men and women who lay down their lives for our freedom? Why can’t the Biden administration define its terms, forbid calls for violence and true white supremacy, rather than using vague terms that invite ideological abuses? Tragically, I think I know the answer.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

VIP: Social Conservatives Hate to Say We Told You So, But the Record Speaks for Itself
Military Diversity Board Proposes Ban on ‘Hate Group Activity,’ Citing SPLC
Cancel Culture on Overdrive: SPLC Wants Government to Hound ‘Extremists’ Out of Existence
CHILLING: California Police Reform Bill May Ban Christians From Law Enforcement

Biden COVID Team Considers Using ChiCom-Based Tracking App That Allows Businesses To Deny Unvaccinated Americans

The proposal would amount to a more extreme version of the 'vaccine passports' being rolled out by airlines and some U.S. cities

Invasive app assigns users a 'health status' - green, yellow, or red - that dictates access to public spaces similar to China's Alipay app


Joe Biden’s coronavirus task force entertained a contact-tracing app that would allow businesses to deny services to people based on their health data, according to a report.

According to a PowerPoint presentation obtained by The Washington Beacon, the app, developed by the University of Illinois, assigns users a “health status”—green, yellow, or red—that dictates access to public spaces similar to the Alipay Health Code program implemented by Communist China.

“The school’s system uses a mobile app that records test results and Bluetooth data to determine who has been exposed to the virus—and ‘links building access’ on campus to that information. Local businesses have also embraced it, making entry conditional on a ‘safe status’ reading from the app,” The Beacon reported.


Illegal Immigrants With Envelopes Of Cash Seen At Airport Flying Around US Illegally




Illegal immigrants who can’t speak English with envelopes full of what appears to be cash are flying around the U.S. in yet another shocking indictment of basic border security.

Joe Biden appears to have just waived immigration law without even waiting to sign an executive order to formally dissolve the U.S. border.

This is a clear violation of state and federal law and it needs to be brought to the attention of judges in order to put an immediate stop to this illegal activity.

In breathtaking fashion, Owen and the crew uncover that migrants are indeed being flown out of McAllen Airport to locations all over the nation, with border patrol stickers emblazoned and travel information and supplies all packed up for convenience to their next destination.

The State of the Church: An Interview with John MacArthur

US Needs to Be Prepared for Nuclear Threats to Homeland

nuclear threats



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Glen VanHerck, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, brought some necessary attention to the growing nuclear threats to the U.S. homeland.

Russia was at the top of his concerns. To match a more assertive nuclear doctrine, Russia is undertaking a massive nuclear modernization effort. This includes a first-of-its-kind heavy intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry a hypersonic glide vehicle that is able to evade U.S. early warning systems.

VanHerck also highlighted Russia’s entirely new capabilities under development, including a nuclear torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile, which could have unlimited range.

China, once hoped to rise peacefully, has also been rapidly advancing its ability to reach the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. It has deployed several road-mobile ICBMs and ballistic missile submarines, and, according to VanHerck, will eventually deploy advanced hypersonic weapons.

Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has already warned us that China is on track to become a nuclear peer to the U.S. by the end of the decade.

And, of course, we can’t forget about North Korea and Iran.

Despite longstanding doubts about the rogue nation’s abilities, North Korea has made significant strides with its ballistic missile arsenal. Since 2017, North Korea developed three ICBMs that could target the U.S. homeland and recently paraded a new ICBM that could be even more powerful.

North Korea also has an active nuclear weapons program. It’s worth contrasting this with the state of the U.S.’ nuclear infrastructure, which—after being allowed to atrophy for years—is incapable of building a nuclear weapon.

And then there’s Iran, which continues to invest in missile and space technologies. Iran is steadily increasing its potential to eventually assemble an ICBM that could hold the continental United States at risk.

To address these threats, VanHerck homed in on missile defense, which provides the capability to deter an adversary by denying its ability to harm the U.S. That means that if an adversary sees the U.S. has a capability to stop a successful attack by shooting down a missile, an adversary will be less emboldened to press the launch button.

The first step to a strong missile defense is a good network of sensors and radars able to see the incoming threat. When discussing the growing cruise missile threat posed by Russia and China, VanHerck remarked, “We don’t want to be in a situation … where endgame defeat is our only option.”

He’s right on the money with this. Defeating advanced missiles must start with improving sensors. After all, seeing the threat is a prerequisite to being able to shoot it down.

One improvement the U.S. is making in this area is the development of the Long Range Discrimination Radar program in Alaska, which will improve the ability to track incoming missiles headed toward the homeland. Last year, Congress also provided funding for radar to be built in Hawaii to further expand radar coverage.

And of course, the U.S. needs to be able to intercept incoming missiles. Currently, the U.S. deploys 44 ground-based interceptors capable of defending against a limited ballistic missile attack.

Fielded in 2004, these interceptors are currently undergoing repairs and upgrades to ensure they will last through the end of the decade, but will ultimately need to be replaced by the upcoming Next Generation Interceptor program.

The next-generation interceptors will bolster the size, reliability, and capability of today’s interceptors, and are absolutely crucial to being able to defend against increasing threats from North Korea and Iran.

After over a year of delay in the contract award for the Next Generation Interceptor, it currently awaits approval on the desk of Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.

In a response to a question from Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., VanHerck was clear about the importance of moving forward with the Next Generation Interceptor: “It gives us extra capacity to go against threats that … could exceed our current [ground-based interceptor] inventory and … will give us capability because the threat continues to advance their capabilities.”

The deputy secretary’s decision to approve the Next Generation Interceptor program will surely be an easy one.

VanHerck’s testimony gives a useful reminder that missile defense must be a top priority. Threats to the U.S. homeland are clearly becoming increasingly challenging, and in turn, so is the task of fulfilling the United States’ moral obligation to protect its citizens from attack.

To realize this reality, the onus is on the Biden administration and Congress to ensure this critical priority receives the attention and funding that it deserves.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory Have No Place in US Military



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Sen. Tom Cotton, rightly angered that the Department of Defense is moving to indoctrinate U.S. military personnel in divisive critical race theory, has introduced a bill that would forbid it.

Like colleagues in the House who sent letters to Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations, expressing severe disapproval of the Navy’s decision to include books on critical race theory and other aspects of identity politics on professional reading lists, Cotton, R-Ark., and a former soldier, demonstrated he understands the corrosive effect that such teachings would have on the U.S military.

In 1968, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. expressed his dream that one day people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is a powerful message consistently referenced by everyone who seeks true equality in diverse populations.

King, like so many before and since who have championed a unified people within our great American experiment, worked to replace identity by race, ethnic group, economic status, gender, or religion with a shared humanity that prizes mutual recognition and respect, regardless of the various characteristics that tend to segregate people by type.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

In many ways, America’s military strives to manifest King’s dream of a world that values people by their character, shared identity, and commitment to a common, noble purpose.

The beauty of military service is that the uniform and common objective supplants grouping by individual identities of color, class, gender, or religion.

I best know the U.S. Marine Corps, because I served in it for 20 years, but all of the services have a similar approach to forming a team—rather than sowing division by focusing on those things that separate individuals from each other.

What united everyone with whom I served was the singular identity of being a U.S. Marine committed to defending our country, a country comprising every sort of person from countless different backgrounds.

It didn’t matter where you came from. All that really mattered among Marines was whether you were competent in your job, committed to the mission, and were someone your fellow Marines could depend on.

Military service truly is the best example of America as the proverbial great melting pot.

This isn’t to say that the military is perfect. Like any other human endeavor, it is composed of people who bring their biases and prejudices with them. But the military knows this; hence, its constant emphasis on small-unit leadership, reinforcement of values, teamwork, and personal accountability.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the legal aspects of military discipline, amply addresses unacceptable conduct, including abuse and disrespect of others.

Every service chief, commanding officer, senior enlisted leader, professional military school, and unit training curriculum reemphasizes core values that characterize military service. It is always a work in progress, just as much as is our country and each of us individually. 

Critical race theory would, however, move the military in the wrong direction by undoing decades, even centuries, of work to foster a team-centered culture.

By relentlessly harping on and reinforcing specific identities—advocating for some, while disparaging others, and requiring certain levels of representation in jobs, ranks, and occupational fields as defined by those identities—what advocates of identity politics actually do is undermine the very thing they supposedly want to advance; namely, equality across peoples.

Racial and gender-based criteria for promotion or assignment to a position, as examples, cause people to wonder whether the person was selected on merit or merely got the job because he or she had a particular identity.

If the latter, then their credibility and the level of respect they should legitimately enjoy are undermined and damaged. They aren’t seen as having earned the position because of performance, competence, or leadership qualities.

People will still salute and carry out orders—but because they are obliged to, not because the person is perceived as rating such on their own merit. By emphasizing and sustaining stereotypes, advocates of racial and gender identity more deeply rooted prejudices, accelerating and amplifying them, rather than neutralizing and eliminating them.

Military discipline, expected conduct, and respect between and within ranks undergird a system in which military forces get the job done because those in uniform are reminded from the first day they put on their uniform that a soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, or Space Force guardian is just that—a fellow service member who has gone through the same training, had to meet the same standards, serves the same Constitution and country, and respects the same flag and national identity.

In short, military service already is the great equalizer.

Programs that emphasize differences among service members, that impose a demand for people to feel guilty about their identity and background, that elevate one group over another, or that seek to subordinate a group relative to another generate resentment, or a sense of aggrieved victimization, or entitlement to special handling.

Such initiatives destroy the fabric of military service that otherwise unites an extraordinarily diverse population in common purpose and identity. Identity politics is a cancer that corrodes good order and discipline and the necessary authorities inherent in a chain of command.

When we view people through the lens of race, gender, or religion, we embrace the polar opposite of everything the U.S. military strives for, being a colorblind, race-blind, gender-blind team that takes the contributions of everyone willing to serve their country and folds them into success.

Thinking less about teams and more about individuals is a recipe for failure for any military, yet this is exactly what critical race theory and other forms of identity politics attempt to do.

Cotton and Republican Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri are all on the mark in questioning why the most senior leaders in our military would act to damage the very foundation upon which our military forges an incredible team of like-minded people dedicated to a common cause, regardless of personal backgrounds and characteristics.

Our military leadership must focus on the core purpose of our military—organizing, equipping, and training a force willing and able to defend the nation from external threats—rather than mire itself in the self-defeating claptrap of identity politics.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Lonestar Bias: Texas Election Officials Received $36 Million to Turn State Blue



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A new report documents that private foundations spent more than $36 million to pay local election offices in Texas to alter policies and practices in the 2020 election. The money was overwhelmingly spent in solid Democratic strongholds and designed to maximize turnout in these Biden-leaning jurisdictions. The money was concentrated in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and the Rio Grande Valley, according to a new report.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, with which I am associated, reviewed the grant letters and other government documents executed between Texas county election officials and the Center for Technology for Civic Life, a nonprofit that poured over $350 million nationwide into government election offices in order to have those offices adopt policies the nonprofit supported.

The nonprofit was funded by Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg after a dinner meeting where controversial Biden Justice Department nominee Vanita Gupta advocated for the strategy in 2019.

Other organizations donated another $100 million nationwide to local election offices in addition to the Zuckerberg-related nonprofit, raising the total to influence government election policy to almost half a billion dollars. PJ Media was the first to report the details of this plan last April.

Documents from Texas county election officials obtained for the Public Interest Legal Foundation report show that the private dollars were focused on adopting procedures not always consistent with Texas law and practices, such as drive-through voting and voting by mail for any reason, contrary to Texas law.

In other words, the private dollars were used in a way to pressure officials to alter existing Texas election procedures adopted by the Texas legislature.

Texas Rep. Phil King has introduced HB 2283 to solve the problem and prohibit private dollars from flowing into government election offices. The bill has sat in committee since March 15.

The private dollars appear to have made a difference. Tarrant County received $1.6 million in Zuckerberg cash. Biden’s performance improved 43% in raw votes over Hillary Clinton’s compared to Trump’s increase of 18% in raw votes. The same dynamic played out in urban areas across Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Democratic urban cores opened the floodgates to Biden votes – all through the creation of structural bias.

Austin area counties also received Zuckerberg dollars, and raw Democrat vote totals there jumped 70 and 80 percent over 2016 in counties like Hays and Williamson, according to the PILF report.

So how does this happen? The Zuckerberg dollars turned urban offices into massive turnout machines. As I wrote:

What these grants did was build structural bias into the 2020 election where structural bias matters most – in densely populated urban cores. It converted election offices in key jurisdictions with deep reservoirs of Biden votes into Formula One turnout machines. The hundreds of millions of dollars built systems, hired employees from activist groups, bought equipment and radio advertisements. It did everything that street activists could ever dream up to turn out Biden votes if only they had unlimited funding.

It is true that red counties in Texas also received grants, but those were fig leaf grants designed to insulate the Center For Technology and Civic life from accusations of bias. More importantly, those grants were smaller, sometimes only $5,000, and barely enough to make any dent in behaviors, unlike the large blue-county grants in Texas.

If the Texas election were confined only to those counties that received Zuckerberg dollars, the report notes, Biden would have won Texas by 270,000 votes. That’s the point. The private dollars created efficiencies and capacities. When a given county is majority blue to begin with, such as Harris or Travis, and you create efficiencies and capacities in the election process in those counties, you are manufacturing votes for Democrats that did not exist before the efficiencies and capacities were put in place with Zuckerberg dollars.

Some might wonder why Zuckerberg money was wasted on Texas, a state Trump was sure to win.

Two answers. First, Texas was not always a certain Trump win. The October spin in the Democrat-friendly media was that Texas was in play. Second, and more importantly, the play in Texas wasn’t about 2020. It was about flipping Texas blue in the future. And if and when that happens, it will be done by building out efficiencies and capacities in the counties in 2020 that were part of the trial run.

Now you understand why banning private money that builds in bias in Texas is so important.


Biden Admin. Wants Police to be Allowed to Seize Your Guns WITHOUT a Warrant



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Imagine that you get into a heated argument with your spouse, and the police are eventually called. You then engage with them non-confrontationally and willingly agree to submit to a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital. The doctors would determine that you’re not a danger to yourself or others; meaning, there would be no inpatient care. Yet when you return home, you find that the police had entered your residence and had seized your firearms without a warrant.

Moreover, you then ask the cops numerous times to return your guns. They refuse, however, and only relent two months later after you have an attorney contact them.

Well, you don’t have to imagine because this is exactly what happened to Rhode Islander Edward Canaglia in 2015 (you can read more details about his case here). What’s more, the Biden administration now wants police nationwide to have the power to seize your weapons without a warrant, according to Fox News Commentator Tucker Carlson.

As he stated Friday evening, referencing a lawsuit Canaglia filed against local police:

So this case is now before the Supreme Court as it should be. But here’s the remarkable thing, the Biden administration is backing the police officers who stole Edward Canaglia’s guns with no warrant. In fact, the Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to approve of this and make it a precedent. They’re asking for permission to search any home they want, without a warrant and take what they want. Any guns that Joe Biden’s police find will be confiscated in the name of “public safety.” Think about that, it’s almost beyond belief. It should be on the front page of every paper in the country, the ACLU should be fighting it, but none of that’s happening. [Video below.]

One reason this is so alarming concerns the Bidenites’ plan for securing “public safety.” As Carlson also point out, Biden is opposing Canaglia because

firearms are just that dangerous. And most dangerous of all, Joe Biden has told us, including this week, are something called “assault weapons.” Assault weapons are such a threat, Joe Biden says, [that] he’s not going to wait for the Supreme Court. He wants Congress, which his party controls, to pass a total ban on “assault weapons.” Well, that sounds familiar because we did it before — for ten years. And it didn’t work; it didn’t work for a bunch of different reasons. First, because no one can define what an “assault weapon” is. Second, because not that many people are killed by assault weapons. But Joe Biden doesn’t care. If you go to Joe Biden’s website, you’ll learn that “assault weapons” are responsible for quote, “our gun violence epidemic.” They’re “weapons of war,” and if you can get them off the streets, this country will be a much safer place. Well, that’s a total crock. And not only is it a lie, it’s an appalling lie, contradicted completely by actual evidence.

The Facts

Carlson then related that according to the FBI’s most recent data (2019), 364 homicides were committed with rifles, of any kind; this equates to approximately three to four percent of all firearms murders. I’ll add that only a small percentage of those 364 murders were committed with so-called assault rifles.

In contrast, 600 people were killed in 2019 with “personal weapons”: fists, feet, and hands. Knives and other cutting tools were used in 1,476 murders. The latter prompted Carlson to quip that maybe we need cutlery control. But don’t laugh — this is already happening in Britain.

For further perspective, note that approximately 60 percent of gun-related deaths are suicides.

Note also that insofar as “assault weapon” is something more than just a propaganda term, it once referred to a rifle with a “select fire” feature; meaning, as I heard it related years ago, such firearms could be fired semi-automatic, fully automatic, or in three-shot bursts. Yet the class of guns targeted by Uncle Sam’s rights snatchers, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, are merely semi-automatic — just as are most firearms purchased today.

For those unacquainted with weapons, this means that you pull the trigger once, and one shot is released. So, no, at issue are not “machine guns”! (Don’t get your firearm “facts” from movies — or leftists.)

This brings us to the rallying cry that people shouldn’t be allowed to have “weapons of war.” Question:

Can you name for me a firearm that wasn’t created as a “weapon of war”?

Flintlocks were used by the British army and colonial Americans as “weapons of war” (video below). Clubs and stones were also “weapons of war” at one time. As far as “weapons of war” go today, semi-automatic rifles are not U.S. military standard issue weapons.


Carlson mentioned as well that while leftists want to further restrict your Second Amendment-protected rights, they don’t even enforce gun laws already on the books in big cities such as Chicago, Washington, and Minneapolis. So do they really care about “gun deaths”?

Moreover, if you lie during a federal firearm background check, you can go to prison for five years, Carlson pointed out. But Hunter Biden did that very thing and was allowed to skate.  

Anyway, if the solution to human sin is as simple as mindless bans, why don’t we just cut to the chase and ban sin itself?

Oh, yeah, that would leave us without the Democratic Party.

Armed ANTIFA Rioters STORM Oregon Capital as Minneapolis Braces for Derek Chauvin Trial!!!


Armed ANTIFA Rioters STORM Oregon’s Capital as the City of Minneapolis Braces for the Derek Chauvin Trial in the Death of George Floyd! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the latest riots unleashed by Antifa agitators, how cities across the country are bracing themselves for the fallout from the Chauvin trial, and how what is nothing less than a Democrat civil war is destroying both themselves and the cities they rule; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Pennsylvania Health Care Worker to Be Fired for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Desiree Pelletier, a 26-year old health care worker in Newville, Pennsylvania said that her employer has fired her for refusing to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, which is being distributed in the U.S. under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 2

Pelletier said that her employer, Hempfield Behavioral Health, is requiring that employees get the vaccine as a condition of employment in an effort the stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. She stated that she is not against vaccination; however, she needed more time to make a personal decision on whether it was best for her body. Pelletier was only given 30 days to make a decision and the deadline is imminent. After 30 days, the vaccine becomes a requirement for employment.3

Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccine’s Impact on Fertility

Pelletier said that her concerns about the EUA COVID-19 vaccines are due to the fact that she would like to become pregnant soon and the fact that the potential adverse effects of experimental COVID-19 vaccines have not been thoroughly studied in pregnant women, including a lack of clinical investigation into the potential effects on fertility.4 She spoke with her doctor about her concerns and she said:

He could not tell me that he would recommend me not getting it, but he also said it should be my choice. I was a mess the whole time I had to make this decision, physically sick. I was thinking, ‘should I get it so I have a job, so I have insurance?5

Pelletier said that after giving it much thought, she decided that her personal beliefs take precedence over the vaccine requirement. Her employer gave her a notice of suspension letter, which states that she would have to provide proof of vaccination within 30 days.6

Pelletier’s suspension letter states that she must get vaccinated because she works with patients who are immune-compromised and have a high risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus but are unable to get the vaccine for medical reasons. She said, “I don’t understand why I couldn’t sit here and Zoom unvaccinated with participants. I didn’t understand why I can’t be on the property with a mask on like I have done from June of 2020 to November of 2020.”7

FDA Says COVID-19 Vaccines Under EUA Status Must Be Voluntary

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explicitly states that experimental vaccines distributed under an EUA cannot be mandated and recipients must be given the option to accept or refuse the vaccine. The FDA website states:

FDA must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances, that FDA has authorized the emergency use of the vaccine, of the known and potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.8

Woman in Nevada Lost Her Job After Refusing to Get COVID-19 Vaccine

A Nevada resident claimed that she lost her job after refusing to get the EUA COVID-19 vaccine that her employer was requiring as a condition for employment. For privacy reasons, the woman did not want to share her name and the name of her employer.9

The woman said that she and some other employees refused to get the vaccine at the present time. She said, “We didn’t say no. We said not right now.” She added that, “There were just a lot of concerns. But they were just not heard. I feel like we should all have our right to choose or not choose it.”10

Click here to view References:

1 Griffaton G. Cumberland County woman says she is being fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccineFox 43 Mar. 3, 2021.
2 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained. Mar. 5, 2021.
3 Ibid.
4 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaccinating Pregnant and Lactating Patients Against COVID-19. Dec. 21, 2020.
5 Griffaton G. Cumberland County woman says she is being fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccineFox 43 Mar. 3, 2021.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 FDA. Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained. Mar. 5, 2021.
9 Loftis S. Woman claims she lost her job after refusing COVID-19 vaccine; legal expert weighs in on employee rights8 News Now Mar. 4, 2021.
10 Ibid.

Biden Political Operative Blocks Ted Cruz From Filming Illegals in Detention Facilities

Senator Ted Cruz has released a video he says shows a Biden administration staffer clashing with him at a border facility and trying to prevent him from filming – telling the Republican “this is not a zoo, sir”. Senator Cruz said the facility he filmed in Donna, Texas, was a “giant tent city”. He and eighteen of his colleagues visited the border to see for themselves the unfolding humanitarian crisis. “We went and toured the Biden cages, you know for four years we heard Democrats and the media talking about kids in cages under president Trump, Joe Biden has built more cages, the cages are bigger and they’re more full,” he said. In the video Senator Cruz shared, the staffer quickly jumped in the frame after he began filming. “Please give dignity to the people,” the staffer said. “So you work for the commissioner, you’re a senior adviser, you were hired two weeks ago and you’re instructed to ask us to not have any pictures taken here because the political leadership at DHS does not want the American people to know it,” Senator Cruz said. “Please respect the rules,” the staffer said. “You keep standing in front of the picture, so you don’t want the pictures taken, the rules are arbitrary, and they’re designed to keep the American people in the dark,” Senator Cruz said. Senator Cruz told Fox News the children in the Donna facility were testing positive for COVID-19 at “roughly” a 10 per cent rate. “They’re locking them in these cages where COVID in a pandemic is a real risk, it is inhumane, it is unconscionable, and it’s the direct result of the political decisions that Joe Biden has made,” he said. “It's massive, it's designed to hold a thousand people but under COVID restrictions, its capacity is 250. “It right now has over 4,000 people in it, it is at a 1,500 percent capacity and that meant you saw in these cages children, little boys and little girls, side by side, they're not six-feet apart, they’re not even six inches apart.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A political operative of the Biden Administration attempted to stop Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) from documenting the squalid conditions inside a crowded illegal immigrant detention facility in South Texas.

On Sunday, Cruz uploaded video of a woman blocking him filming as he tried to show the American people the inside of an overflowing detention center in Donna, Texas.

As Cruz attempted to film, a woman approached him to obstruct the camera view and telling him to “Please give dignity to the people.”

“This is not a zoo, sir,” the woman at one point tells Cruz, to which he responds, “You’re right and this is a dangerous place and your policies unfortunately are trying to hide them.”

Cruz, who was attempting to show hundreds of illegals wrapped in mylar blankets sleeping on floors inside the makeshift tent facilities, appears to be familiar with the woman.

“So you work for the commissioner,” Cruz tells her, “you’re a senior adviser, you were hired two weeks ago, and you’re instructed to ask us to not have any pictures taken here because the political leadership at DHS does not want the American people to know it.”

The outrageous video comes as Cruz called on the Biden administration to grant the media access to the facilities so Americans can see firsthand the out-of-control humanitarian crisis at the border.

“We understand the heartbreaking tragedy unfolding at the border because we were there. We saw it,” Cruz stated. “But the American people are unable to see it because you remain intent on keeping the media from shining a light on your administration’s failures.”

“This is outrageous. The Trump administration allowed media into DHS facilities. So did the Obama administration, the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. But you want to hide what is going on.”

Biden during a press conference Thursday suggested media access could be forthcoming, saying “I will commit to transparency, and – as soon as I am in a position to be able to implement what we are doing right now.”

Cruz’s letter says on Friday, however, reporters were still not allowed inside the Donna facility.

“They could not show the American people cages after cages of little boys lying side-by-side, of little girls lying side-by-side, covered with reflective emergency blankets with virtually no space between them,” Cruz says. “They could not see the playpen of infants and toddlers brought here by human traffickers and then left alone. They could not see the row of children who, having just been crammed into the crowded cages, were now testing positive for COVID-19.”

Biden Tries to Hide an Obvious Crisis at Border~Former DHS Chief Chad Wolf: Perverse Incentives Fueling Border Crisis



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The full-blown humanitarian crisis on the southern border ultimately could threaten the safety and security of every single American. The Biden administration has failed to properly acknowledge the severity of the situation and seemingly is in total denial of just how dire the circumstances are.

Even more alarming, President Joe Biden has imposed a gag order on U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, instructing the agency’s press officers to deny all ride-along requests and refer all questions—even from local reporters—to Washington for approval.

The Biden administration is trying to hide and impose censorship on the border crisis that everyone already knows is underway. In the past month alone, nearly 100,000 illegal immigrants have attempted to unlawfully enter our nation.

It’s clear that the administration’s slew of executive actions and policies have incentivized this illegal behavior, leading to an extreme uptick of criminal crossings. According to Customs and Border Protection, migrant encounters along the southern border are up 28% since January and up 173% since this time last year.

Keep in mind, these migrants aren’t adults only but also children and family units. Customs and Border Protection expects about 13,000 unaccompanied migrant children to reach the border by May and 117,000 by the end of the year. Apprehensions of family units are up 317% since last February.

Nearly one-third of migrants have been affected by human trafficking or other exploitative practices along their route. Some migrant women have shared that, as The New York Times reported, “sexual violence has become an inescapable part of the collective migrant journey.”

The rush we are seeing to cross the Rio Grande is a direct result of the Biden administration’s efforts to weaken border security, virtually eliminate enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, put a moratorium on deportations, and promise amnesty to undocumented immigrants residing in the country illegally. 

The administration also put a stop to the construction of the border wall, reinstated “catch and release,” and tied the hands of immigration enforcement officers.

The Biden administration recently awarded $86 million to cover hotel costs for migrants at the border in Texas and Arizona. These migrants are entering our country illegally, but instead of being sent back, they are greeted with hotel accommodations. That’s just plain wrong.

We also know that drug cartels actively are exploiting the administration’s dismal immigration stance to cross our southern border. Nationwide, drug seizures increased 50% in February from a month earlier.

Several known terrorists, or others reasonably suspected of terrorism, are capitalizing on this influx of migrants to fly under the radar and infiltrate our nation through our porous borders.

Without question, the Biden administration has failed to be transparent about the problem or even acknowledge that it is a crisis. Despite this, the administration deployed the Federal Emergency Management Agency—which coordinates the response to disasters in the U.S. and is another part of the Department of Homeland Security—to assist in handling this surge in migrants. If that doesn’t constitute a crisis, what does? 

The administration’s immigration policies are in fact a disaster, and they have failed monumentally as this crisis has developed.  

It’s deeply concerning that House Democrats’ answer to this growing problem has been to pass two bills that will further incentivize and reward illegal immigration with amnesty. 

To be clear: Whether Democrats like it or not, this is a full-blown national security and humanitarian emergency.

Our country cannot afford politically motivated policies that make our borders less secure, fail to uphold the rule of law, and damage public health.

But those are exactly the kind of policies President Biden has enacted since Day One of his presidency, and they have accelerated the crisis at the southern border dangerously. We need an immigration policy that prioritizes securing the border and protecting the health and safety of Americans first.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 


Sen. Blackburn: Drug cartels are 'running the border'

Rumble — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) shared what she saw during her trip to the southern border. One America's John Hines has more from Washington.

'Whatever You Do, We're Coming': Coyotes Heckle Senators at the Border



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Eighteen Republican senators decided to see for themselves what was happening at the border so they took a little excursion to Texas, visiting several border facilities run by the Border Patrol.

The trip to the border became necessary because the Biden administration has imposed a near-total news blackout on what’s happening there. The administration flunkie who was escorting the senators even asked that the lawmakers delete any pictures, a request echoed by border officials. Not surprisingly, the GOP senators refused to comply.

Indiana Senator Mike Braun described some of what he saw.

Washington Examiner:

Those photos showed children as young as 3 years old jammed into the facilities that Braun described as the worst situation for migrants in 20 years. He earlier provided Secrets with a video of migrants being held by the dozens under a bridge.

In a debriefing of the tour, Braun said that one of the first stops was with border agents at the edge of the Rio Grande, where illegal immigrants typically cross. There, he said, the “coyotes,” who charge $4,000 to $20,000 to get migrants across, heckled the group in Spanish.

“All of a sudden to hear from the other side of the river taunting from the smugglers and coyotes, most of it in Spanish, telling the border guards that ‘whatever you do, we’re coming,’” said Braun. “That kind of hit home in such an anecdotal way because it is one story that kind of is a metaphor for what’s happening all up and down the border,” he added.

“A big welcome sign was put out,” said Braun. “I think it was a political blunder.”

Sen. Ted Cruz describes seeing “cage after cage after cage” of children.

The Biden administration has made a big show of telling would-be migrants to stay away—that the law is the law and they will be deported if they showed up at the border. But the reality is far different.

CBS News:

U.S. agents in south Texas are not expelling Central American families with children younger than seven years of age to Mexico, according to a senior Border Patrol official who requested anonymity during a call with reporters Friday. Some of the migrant families encountered in south Texas are being flown to other Border Patrol sectors, like El Paso, and sent to Mexico from there, the official confirmed.

“We’re still leveraging Title 42 in other areas,” the Border Patrol official said, referring to the expulsions policy, which was first authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March 2020.

Mr. Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have said that while they would like to expel most Central American families to Mexico under the Title 42 public health authority, Mexican authorities in the state of Tamaulipas, across from the Rio Grande Valley, are not accepting young children traveling with parents.

According to the Customs and Border Patrol, 86 percent of families processed at the border have been allowed into the U.S without being deported. There were 6,000 apprehensions at the border on Thursday and virtually none of the migrants were sent back.

Biden looked into the cameras during his press conference and said “nothing has changed” at the border. That was a lie. He said most people were being deported. That was a lie. He said the surge in unaccompanied minors at the border is normal. He lied. He’s allowing the release of illegal aliens into the country without giving them a court date. And he’s allowing unvetted sponsors to take children from border facilities.

Biden is getting away with his lies because, in addition to the media being in his pocket, he’s preventing any bad news from leaking out by muzzling the press.

Biden can improve the situation immensely by reimposing some Trump-era policies. But he’d better do it quickly. If the border isn’t already out of control, it soon will be.

Report: Border Crossings by Unaccompanied Children Will Rise Sharply in April


Texas rancher says migrants entering property: 'Never seen it at this level'

John Sewell, Texas ranch owner, fears for his family's safety amid border crisis.

'The Five' react to 'shocking' images of facilities holding children at border

Sen. Lankford Says over 700 Migrants Crammed into Pod "Designed for 80" at Detention Facility

"[Migrant children] were taking turns laying down on the floor because there's no space ... None of this was true three months ago. Literally, when President Biden came in and announced that he was changing the policy, they showed us the stats and showed how it skyrocketed," Sen. James Lankford said Friday at a migrant facility in Donna, Texas.

US Announces $15,000,000 in Aid to Palestinians~Did the Taylor Force Act Mean Nothing?



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden Administration’s U.N. ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, on March 24 announced at a meeting of the Security Council that the Biden Administration was giving $15 million dollars to the PA for “humanitarian aid.” A report on this development, both expected and deplorable, is here: “In first under Biden, US announces $15 million in aid for Palestinians,” by Jacob Magid, Times of Israel, March 25, 2021:

US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced Thursday that Washington will send $15 million in COVID-related humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

The package will be the first such funds transferred under the Biden administration, which has vowed to restore financial assistance to the Palestinians that was cut almost entirely by former president Donald Trump.

With this assistance, the US Agency for International Development is supporting Catholic Relief Services’ COVID-19 response efforts in healthcare facilities and for vulnerable families in the West Bank and Gaza,” Thomas-Greenfield said in an address to the UN Security Council’s monthly briefing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, her first as envoy.

In addition, this assistance will support emergency food assistance programming to communities facing food insecurity, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This urgent, necessary aid is one piece of our renewed commitment to the Palestinian people. The aid will help Palestinians in dire need, which will bring more stability and security to both Israelis and Palestinians alike. That’s consistent with our interests and our values, and it aligns with our efforts to stamp out the pandemic and food insecurity worldwide,” she added.

A separate State Department statement also noted that the US has already donated $2 billion to the UN-backed COVAX initiative that works to vaccinate populations in developing countries. The Palestinians received their first shipment of inoculations from the program earlier this month.

It all sounds so admirable. COVID-19 aid? Who could object? And the aid would be going through Catholic Relief Services, which for many people signifies as good-samaritan an organization as one can find. What kind of person would want to prevent American aid from going to that group, so that it might give succor to suffering Palestinians? Who would wish to deny money for the vaccine, for “healthcare facilities” and for “emergency food assistance” to “vulnerable families”? Well, it’s the PA itself that has for years refused to spend money on health facilities, it’s the PA that has done little to remedy food insecurity, it’s the PA that, even after the pandemic had begun, failed to act, failed to buy a single dose of vaccine.

It’s the PA that has consistently denied its people the food and vaccines they needed; it’s the PA that chooses to spend so much of its money, about $350 million annually, on the “Pay-for-Slay” Program, that rewards past, and incentivizes future, acts of terrorism. It’s the PA that chose to build Mahmoud Abbas a $13 million mansion and buy him his $50 million jet. It’s Mahmoud Abbas who during his entire tenure as President has managed to skim, along with his crooked cronies, hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money. Abbas himself has amassed a personal fortune of $400 million; his cronies count theirs in the millions. Shouldn’t we be asking Abbas and the PA to spend more aid money on health care, and food, and vaccines, and end the mismanagement and colossal corruption that makes life so difficult for ordinary Palestinians, instead of continuing to overlook all that?

Plans to send the $15 million aid package were first reported earlier this month by The National, which retrieved an internal Biden administration memo that outlined its initial policy approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Taylor Force Act passed by the US Congress in 2018 bars Washington from sending aid that will directly benefit the Palestinian Authority as long as Ramallah continues sending regular stipends to those convicted of acts of terrorism. However, the humanitarian aid announced by Thomas-Greenfield would not violate the legislation, which the Biden administration has vowed to uphold.

How can the Biden administration maintain that giving this money to the PA does not violate the Taylor Force Act? Does it hope no one will be so hard-hearted as to demand the application of the provisions of the TFA, and deny the Palestinians COVID-19 aid? Of course, no one is denying the PA the possibility of buying vaccines. All the PA has to do is take just part of the money it now spends on its Pay-For-Slay program – about $350 million a year — and use it to buy vaccines. It’s the PA’s choice. The Taylor Force Act does not contain a special exemption for aid that the Biden people describe as “humanitarian.” The TFA text is quite clear: all American economic aid to the PA, whatever its stated purpose, is prohibited as long as the PA’s “Pay-For-Slay” program is in place.

The Biden Administration has “vowed to uphold” the Taylor Force Act, and in the same breath announces it will give $15 million to the PA even though its Pay-For-Slay program continues. Perhaps what the Biden people want us to believe is that “humanitarian” aid is different from “economic” aid. This is Jesuitical casuistry. Money given that is called “humanitarian” aid is not distinguishable from, but merely a subset of, “economic” aid.

The $15 million package also mirrors the COVID-related assistance sent to the West Bank and Gaza in the Trump administration’s final months.

The Trump Administration, when the pandemic had begun, sent $5 million to the PA. In doing so, it did indeed violate the Taylor Force Act. but it was such a small, symbolic amount, that one might excuse it with the rationale of de minimis non-curat lex. The Trump people may have wanted, as the pandemic loomed, to nudge the PA into rethinking its Pay-for-Slay program, but the PA refused, and there were no follow-up payments. That one-time payment should not now be invoked to justify a much larger transfer of American aid, which begins with this first installment of $15 million, amidst promises of much more aid to come, including renewal of by the Americans of annual payments of hundreds of millions of dollars to UNRWA.

The Taylor Force Act is now being violated by the Biden Administration. There is no other way to look at it. And more aid to the PA will mean ever more violations of TFA. Does anyone care? Yes, of course. You do. And I do. But what about Congress? Will the Democrats who now control both houses of Congress demand that the Democratic President enforce the TFA that a previous Congress had approved? Or will they overlook the violation of the TFA by Biden?  Will calling this renewal of American funds to the PA “humanitarian aid” be enough of a fig leaf to prevent the application of the provisions of the Taylor Force Act? It certainly looks that way.

Before the Trump administration began tightening the screws on the PA in 2018 for refusing to engage with its peace efforts, the United States was the single largest donor country to the PA.

The US paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the PA’s creditors, such as the Israeli state utility companies from which the Palestinians purchase water and electricity. It also paid for training for the PA’s security forces and numerous infrastructure projects.

Washington also gave hundreds of millions a year in funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency — known as UNRWA — which is in charge of administering the daily needs of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants across the Middle East. The Biden administration has stated that it plans to restart funding to UNWRA as well.

The UN envoy [Linda Thomas-Greenfield] used the opportunity to address what she viewed as the Security Council’s disproportionate focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “There are other issues in the region that are threats to international peace and security and deserve more of this council’s attention,” she said.

Her remark about “other issues in the region” to which insufficient attention is paid at the U.N. is both obvious and sure to go largely unheeded at the Security Council. Here are some of those insufficiently addressed issues: Civil wars in Yemen, Syria, and Libya. A collapsed economy in Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon. An aggressive Iran working simultaneously to build a nuclear weapon and to create, through proxies and allies – the Houthis in Yemen, the Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, the Syrian army in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, a “Shi’a crescent” from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. Those are some of the “other issues in the region” that are given less attention while the focus remains, always, on Israel and its many malefactions.

The monstrous regiment of Israel-haters at the U.N., and those countries that simply go along with those haters because it’s diplomatically the path of least resistance, will continue to ensure that more critical attention is given to, and calumny heaped upon, the mighty empire of Israel than to any other country, at the General Assembly, at the Security Council, and especially, at the U.N. Human Rights Council. The UNHRC has passed more resolutions (90) denouncing Israel in the last few years, than similar resolutions passed (70) about all the 191 other countries put together.

“Let me be clear,” Thomas-Greenfield added, going on to reiterate a sentiment she conveyed at her Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. “Not all criticism of Israel is illegitimate. But too often, that criticism veers dangerously into anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, as with all forms of hate, works directly against the cause of peace. So, we will vigorously oppose one-sided efforts.”

In the rest of her speech, Thomas-Greenfield repeated some of the Biden administration’s already announced policies on the conflict. She said the US would continue to support Israel while also advancing a two-state solution that would allow Palestinians to fulfill their right to self-determination.

Would it be churlish to remind Thomas-Greenfield, and all the peace-processors in the Biden Administration, that as part of their “right to self-determination” the Palestinians include their right to undermine, and ultimately to dominate and destroy, the Jewish state? Hamas and Fatah differ on timing and tactics, but not on the ultimate goal.

She urged both sides to avoid unilateral steps that would make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve. This, she said, included settlement expansion, home demolitions, incitement to violence, providing compensation for individuals imprisoned for acts of terrorism and all acts of violence.

“Settlement expansion” by Israel is deplored as a threat to a “two-state solution.” But those settlements are to be actively encouraged, according to the Mandate for Palestine, which the Biden Administration seems to have trouble remembering or, which is more likely, and even worse, perhaps doesn’t know its contents or understand its continuing relevance. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, the Mandatory authority, Great Britain, was obligated to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? The land set out in the Mandate maps, the land that was to become the future Jewish National Home. To wit: the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. That meant that Judea and Samaria – renamed the “West Bank” by Jordan in 1950 — was to be open to Jewish settlement. In 1967, Israel was able to exercise its pre-existing right to create those settlements throughout the “West Bank.” Inexplicably, almost everyone wants to forget about the Palestine Mandate, and to pretend that some sort of legal significance ought to be given to the 1949 armistice lines, though these were never recognized borders, and only reflected where the armies of Israel and the Arabs stood when the guns fell silent on a certain day in 1949.

Thomas-Greenfield and the Administration of which she is a part are hoping that Congress will not object to what they are calling “humanitarian aid” being given to the PA; they are starting small, with a $15 million payment, to see if that amount passes muster, and if so, then will proceed with their tactic of “first a little, thence to more,” until hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called “humanitarian aid” are again given to the Palestinians, who will still have their Pay-For-Slay program in place. Taylor Force will have been undermined, even as the Administration preposterously claims to be “upholding” it. And Joe Biden, as he lies abed a’nights thinking of all the poor Palestinians his massive renewal of aid will have helped, can complacently think to himself “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” Don’t talk to him about the Taylor Force Act; he”ll cover his ears.

And the spectacle of terrorists and their families continuing to be so hugely rewarded for their murderous attacks on Israelis will continue to inspire other Palestinians to go and do likewise. The Israelis will thus pay, in lives destroyed or ended, for the naivete and fatuity of the Biden Administration.


WARNING: New Sesame Street Muppets Brainwash Infants and Toddlers about Racism (Video)



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

US left-wing run children’s television show “Sesame Street” has released videos featuring two new muppets to brainwash children as young as infants about race and racism.

African-American dad Elijah and his son Wes are featured in one of the videos, talking to red muppet Elmo about differences in skin color due to melanin.


The new muppets were introduced as part of the “ABCs of Racial Literacy” video resources, produced by non-profit Sesame Workshop as part of its commitment to “social justice”, or better known as communism.

The concept of “social justice” is a smokescreen for the old-fashioned divide-and-conquer weapon deployed by communists. From a young age, these social justice warriors exploit differences to evoke hostilities among children in order to indoctrinate them.

Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street, said it wants to “provide families with the tools they need to build racial literacy, to have open conversations with young children.”

“The work to dismantle racism begins by helping children understand what racism is and how it hurts and impacts people,” Kay Wilson Stallings, Sesame Workshop’s executive vice president of creation and production explained.

The group also provides activities for kids as well as tutorials for parents to teach children as young as infants about the dangers of racism.

The muppets have long been accused of pushing a communist agenda. In 2011, a national debate erupted after a commentator on Fox News stated that the new Muppets movie sends a clear, anti-corporate message to kids and adults who watch. The movie centered around an oil baron conflict and a subversive anti-capitalism message.
Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

March 22, 2021

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


Good afternoon,

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission had an opportunity to go after Google on antitrust grounds. In 2013, the agency closed the investigation and dropped the case. A remarkable leak of those investigatory documents -- usually kept confidential -- reveals the extent to which the FTC relied on speculative economic forecasting over actual evidence of market distortions. Moreover, the pressure Google applied to the FTC through its deep ties to the Obama Administration suggest that the lack of enforcement had a political bent.

My take on all of this -- and what it means as Congress grapples with our antitrust laws and the growing power of Big Tech -- in the piece below.

 Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly After Google Execs Helped Obama Get Re-Elected

Leaked documents from the FTC's 2012 investigation of

Google show exactly what is wrong with the state of American antitrust enforcement.

Eight years ago, the Federal Trade Commission had the chance to face down Google — the giant of Silicon Valley whose power now alters the free flow of information at a global scale, distorts market access for businesses large and small, and changes the nature of independent thought in ways the world has never experienced.

Instead, the FTC blinked — and blinked hard, choosing to close the investigation in early 2013. A remarkable leak to Politico of agency documents about the 2012 Google investigation reveals that, despite ample evidence of market distortions and threats to competition presented by the agency’s lawyers, the five commissioners of the FTC deferred instead to speculative claims by their economists.

Records and reporting about the 2012 investigation suggest the FTC did so while bending to political pressure from the Obama White House — which was, in turn, bending to political pressure from Google. William Kovacic, a former FTC chair under President George W. Bush, reviewed the more than 3,00 pages of documents leaked to Politico and concluded the agency overlooked “what many experts and regulators would consider clear antitrust violations,” calling the specificity of issues outlined “breathtaking.”

In short, where we find ourselves today — with Google as the primary filter of the world’s information, engaging in a network of exclusionary contracts and anti-competitive conduct, and subject to an antitrust lawsuit led by the Department of Justice and joined by 48 state attorneys general — could have, and should have, been avoided.

That it wasn’t, however, provides key takeaways about where we are now with Big Tech, and, in particular, the method of enforcement of our antitrust laws, whose application has become too tightly wrapped around the axle of price, and captured by the speculative science of economic forecasting. It also reveals just how politicized antitrust enforcement has become — influenced by the siren song of internet exceptionalism and the powerful tug of Google, one of the world’s richest companies.

The Economists Were Wrong

Perhaps the most stunning takeaway in the 2012 documents is the extent to which the recommendations of the FTC’s lawyers sharply differed from those of the agency’s economists, on whose judgment the FTC commissioners ultimately relied in their decision to drop the investigation into Google.

The FTC’s antitrust attorneys concluded that Google was breaking the law by “banishing potential competitors” with a series of exclusionary contracts on mobile phones — much of which forms the basis for the lawsuit brought nearly a decade later by the Trump Department of Justice. The FTC’s economists, however, demurred, insisting that claims of Google’s market dominance were unfounded and would soon give way to competition. This required a markedly un-curious treatment of key facts.

The economists claimed, for example, that Google only represented 10 to 20 percent of the referral traffic to retail sites — disregarding statements from Google itself that those numbers were unreliable, as well as evidence from staff attorneys that Google’s referral traffic to retail provided closer to 70-90 percent. A pair of FTC economists made what Politico deemed “questionable assertions” about Google’s dominance of the advertising markets, citing as their evidence a study by Google and two academic papers funded by grants from Google.

Among other claims, two economists also alleged that Google’s grip on the market for mobile devices would fall in the face of competition from Amazon and Mozilla — and that the mobile distribution channel for search was too small a market to be relevant.

History has borne out how spectacularly wrong the economists were. This brings forward a key element of the over-reliance on an ever-narrowing set of criteria around which our antitrust laws are now enforced. It over-emphasizes speculative economic forecasting over hard market realities.

Coherent economic principles are central to antitrust enforcement for good reason — otherwise, justification for enforcement would swing wildly on ideological ballasts. But, like the consumer welfare standard’s current application, which is narrowly fixated on price (as opposed to a broad application that considers other factors, like consumer choice and innovation), economic forecasting has taken a premier and unquestionable seat among antitrust enforcers.

In particular, an over-reliance on a cost-benefit tool called the error-cost framework has made enforcers gun-shy about acting at all. Enforcers now largely defer to benefit claims made by the merging parties – and the economists these companies can afford to hire, who conveniently produce speculative analysis to buttress their points – while appearing to ignore hard evidence by senior executives clearly stating an anticompetitive intent behind a merger or business strategy.

In the case of Google, for example, one top executive bragged in an email that Google could “own the U.S. market” with its exclusive contracts with major phone makers and carriers. The FTC’s attorneys concluded Google was breaking competition laws. The agency’s economists, however, said there was no issue because they “expected” the mobile search to remain a small market.

In the FTC’s ultimate judgment, speculative analysis and complex econometric modeling reigned supreme over pragmatic facts regarding anti-competitive market behavior. This flips the intended calculus on its head.

Judge Robert Bork, one of the progenitors of the consumer welfare standard, explicitly warned against pushing economics beyond its competence. In his seminal book, “The Antitrust Paradox,” Bork wrote that “antitrust must avoid any standards that require direct measurement and quantification of either restriction of output or efficiency. Such tasks are impossible.”

He goes on, “The real objection to performance tests and efficiency defenses in antitrust law is that they are spurious. They cannot measure the factors relevant to consumer welfare, so that after the economic extravaganza was completed we should know no more than before it began.” Finally, Judge Bork notes that “the judge, the legislator, or lawyer cannot simply take the word of an economist in dealing with antitrust, for the economists will certainly disagree.”

Economic analysis, in other words, is a component, not the whole, of the analysis. Antitrust economics can help assess, but cannot ultimately determine, the scope of antitrust policy in its most rational form: determining who is being harmed, and how.

In 2012, the FTC made the critical error of letting economic speculation subsume the hard market evidence that former FTC chair William Kovacic called “specific, direct, and clear about the path ahead.” In its final judgment, the agency prioritized the “economic extravaganza” that Judge Bork explicitly warned against. They were wrong, and the market consequences have been severe.

Google’s Thumb on the Scale

The FTC was not acting in a vacuum, however. Although an independent agency, four of the FTC’s five commissioners voting on the Google probe were appointed by the Obama administration, which was notably close to Silicon Valley and very much bought into the notion of America’s internet exceptionalism.

According to The New York Times in 2016, President Obama was “America’s first truly digital president,” the leader who “routinely pushed policy that pleases the tech-savvy” and boasted “deep and meaningful connections” with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs.

In 2012, Google employees were the second-largest source of campaign donations by any single U.S. company besides Microsoft. Google employees were senior aides at the White House and Google executives served on White House advisory panels. On Nov. 6, 2012, the day Obama was re-elected to a second term, Eric Schmidt, Google’s then-executive chairman, “personally oversaw a voter-turnout software system for Mr. Obama,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The frequent contact between Google and the White House continued during the FTC’s investigation. A report published in 2015 by the Wall Street Journal detailed the “unusual” depth of Google’s engagement with the Obama administration, finding the company had clocked 230 meetings with senior White House officials, roughly one per week. Their top lobbyist Johanna Shelton darkened White House doors for more than 60 meetings. By April of 2016, according to another report, Shelton had notched 128 White House meetings.

Google has reportedly also attempted to dictate how the FTC discusses both the company and the dropped antitrust case. When the Wall Street Journal published a partial leak of the FTC’s Google investigation documents in 2015 (later fully leaked to Politico) demonstrating the depth of disagreement between the agency’s staff and the final commission vote, Shelton emailed the agency’s chief of staff to state Google was “troubled” and “puzzled” by the FTC’s non-response. She asked the agency to issue a statement that “set the record straight.” A statement was issued two days later.

Congressional Oversight Is Desperately Needed

Thanks in part to the FTC’s whiff on Google in 2012, the power of Big Tech has continued to grow, unchecked and largely unrivaled. Antitrust enforcement is once again emerging as a key remedy to the anti-competitive and market-distorting elements of what is undeniably oligarchic power.

But to avoid the mistakes of 2012, congressional oversight is desperately needed: over how our antitrust laws are being enforced, if that enforcement aligns with the congressional intent of the statutes, if the enforcement agencies are adequately resourced for the task, and whether statutory interpretation needs clarification for the digital economy.

Big Tech is pouring big money into the policy and academic arguments that claim such efforts would “politicize” antitrust enforcement, away from the pristine science of economic analysis. But if FTC’s actions in 2012 are any indication, antitrust enforcement is already well-politicized, and economic analysis, while a useful guidepost, is not a compass. In fact, an over-reliance on the error-cost framework can render our antitrust laws completely moot in the face of real market threats.

In many areas, Congress has largely abandoned its role as the lawmaking body, preferring instead to outsource policy development to bureaucrats and the courts. It is encouraging, therefore, to see both the House and Senate engaging in scrutiny of antitrust enforcement for Big Tech.

The FTC of 2012 has given them a helpful guide by highlighting the areas of weakness in our current enforcement analysis, and the capture by billion-dollar interests that can defer it. In other words, the leaked FTC memos are a flashing red light that all is not well in the world of American antitrust enforcement. The antitrust agencies have effectively privatized antitrust law. Congress must democratize it again.

Rachel Bovard is the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
1 2 3 10