About Those Students Arrested by the Department of Homeland Security thumbnail

About Those Students Arrested by the Department of Homeland Security

By The Geller Report

According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 300 foreign students, such as Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia and Rumeysa Ozturk at Tufts, who are here in the United States on student visas, have now been arrested, and are threatened with deportation by the Department of Homeland Security. These 300 have been variously charged with a variety of offenses: providing support to Hamas, a designated terrorist group, both in person and on social media; calling for the destruction of the state of Israel (“From the river to the sea/Palestine shall be free”), urging violence against Jews everywhere (“Globalize the Intifada”), participating in campus violence, including physically harassing and attacking Jewish students, trying to shut down classes taught by Jewish professors, entering and vandalizing campus buildings, attacking campus police and janitorial staff, and much more. Douglas Murray discusses it all here.

All this gets especially messy because at the same time that portions of the right want to effect outrage at things which are essentially unimportant, the left is trying to focus on a much more important free-speech battle.

They believe that if someone supports a radical terrorist group or comes to the United States and tries to cause civil unrest or vandalism that they should somehow be protected by the First Amendment.

In recent days and weeks even some esteemed conservative writers have backed up this position.

As well as the case of Mahmoud Khalil, there is now also the case of Rumeysa Ozturk. Like Khalil, this person came into the US claiming to be a student. She came in on a student visa.

The Turkish-born student has now been detained. She seems — like Khalil — to have made a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to come to the US as a student.

First of all she — like him — is not protected by the same laws that would protect an American citizen. She was not born in this country, is not a citizen of this country and was — in fact — a guest in this country.

But the left — and some on the right — are gearing up to make her their latest “free-speech martyr.” Yet even free speech for American citizens stop at the moment that you support the harassment of American students.

It stops at the moment that you encourage and engage in acts of vandalism and violence on American college campuses — among other places. And it stops when you support foreign and domestic terrorist movements.

As Marco Rubio said yesterday, there is no reason why any country in the world should invite people into it whose intent is to cause civil strife. What country would invite people in and then reward them for trying to cause trouble in their host country?

As Rubio said of the Ozturk case: “We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree — not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses. If you use your visa to do that, we’ll take it away. And I encourage every country to do the same.”

Senator Josh Hawley managed to hold the sane eminently sensible line yesterday when he berated people claiming that assaulting campus police and smashing up buildings is “protected speech.” It isn’t.

Words are not violence. Violence is violence. The woke left never liked to remember this. But conservatives shouldn’t forget it either.

The defenders of these students who have been arrested and will have their cases heard in a court of law keep claiming that what is at stake is “their right to freedom of speech.” No, it is not. Theirs is not a free speech matter. What is at stake, among other things, is the violent part these people play in suppressing the freedom of speech of others. They shout down pro-Israel speakers, entering lecture halls to interrupt such speakers with chants — “Stop Ethnic Cleansing,” “End the Genocide,” “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free,” and most threatening of all, “Globalize the Intifada.” They violently invade university buildings, and vandalize them, writing pro-Hamas graffiti on walls. They attack campus police trying to regulate the tent encampments that they set up in the middle of campuses. At Columbia, the pro-Hamas brigade entered Hamilton Hall, and proceeded to break furniture and write on the walls. When members of the janitorial staff tried to stop them, they were attacked. One of the janitors was so wounded that he spent five days in the hospital.

Right now, Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk are being presented as martyrs on the altar of free speech. But it is the active participation in violence of the former, and the approval expressed for Palestinian violence by the other, that have gotten them in trouble. They were greatly privileged to have been allowed into our country for study. But they greatly abused that privilege, and if justice is done, Khalil will be back in the despotic mess that is Gaza, or possibly end up teaching at Birzeit University (ranked as the 1,946th university in the world) in Judea (or is Samaria?). As for Ms. Ozturk, she can look forward, if justice is done in her case, to returning to Turkey, to be ruled by the dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as he tightens the screws of his regime. Neither one will be able to exercise the freedom of speech they so abused in warm-hearted and welcoming America. Both will lament their paradise lost, which only when they are far away, in their respective political hellholes, will they begin to appreciate.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

The post About Those Students Arrested by the Department of Homeland Security appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

DHS Just Added Itself To Harvard’s List Of Trump Admin Adversaries thumbnail

DHS Just Added Itself To Harvard’s List Of Trump Admin Adversaries

By The Daily Caller

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday revoked its own grants from Harvard University over its alleged failure to address antisemitism.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the department is canceling two grants totaling $2.7 million to the school as part of a continued crack down against antisemitism on campus, according to a press release. Noem said the school is “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”

“Harvard bending the knee to antisemitism — driven by its spineless leadership — fuels a cesspool of extremist riots and threatens our national security,” said Secretary Noem. “With anti-American, pro-Hamas ideology poisoning its campus and classrooms, Harvard’s position as a top institution of higher learning is a distant memory. America demands more from universities entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”

The Secretary wrote Harvard a letter demanding details on any violent and illegal activities committed by foreign student visa holders. The letter warned that, if the records were not turned over by April 30, Harvard would lose its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification and be unable to admit foreign students altogether.

Noem claims the $800,303 Implementation Science for Targeted Violence Prevention grant “branded conservatives as far-right dissidents in a shockingly skewed study,” while the $1,934,902 Blue Campaign Program Evaluation and Violence Advisement grant “funded Harvard’s public health propaganda.”

“Both undermine America’s values and security,” the press release stated. “With a $53.2 billion endowment, Harvard can fund its own chaos—DHS won’t.”

The Trump administration on April 11 demanded Harvard agree to a list of reforms to the way it handles antisemitism after a September congressional investigation found “Harvard failed” to enforce meaningful punishment on nearly 70 students who were involved in a multi-day pro-Hamas encampment during the previous spring semester. The changes asked of the school included reforming and better enforcing disciplinary processes for students who participate in antisemitic protests, improving screening of international students for “hostile” views towards America and auditing “programs with egregious records of antisemitism.”

In a public statement Monday afternoon, Harvard declared it “will not surrender” and refused the proposal. The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, made up of the Department of Education (ED), Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) swiftly revoked over $2 billion in grants to the university hours later.

“Harvard is aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s letter regarding grant cancellations and scrutiny of foreign student visas, which—like the Administration’s announcement of the freeze of $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts, and reports of the revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status—follows on the heels of our statement that Harvard will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” a Harvard spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We continue to stand by that statement. We will continue to comply with the law and expect the Administration to do the same.”

“Harvard values the rule of law and expects all members of our community to comply with University policies and applicable legal standards. If federal action is taken against a member of our community, we expect it will be based on clear evidence, follow established legal procedures, and respect the constitutional rights afforded to all individuals,” the spokesman continued.

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard Runs To Wall Street For $750,000,000 Cash Infusion

Conference Of Islamic Clerics In Pakistan Calls For Jihad Against Israel

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


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

The post DHS Just Added Itself To Harvard’s List Of Trump Admin Adversaries appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Why Americans Oppose DEI

By Scott Yenor

They’re right to rebel against wokeness

The following is a lightly edited version of a speech that was delivered to university administrators at the annual meeting of the Higher Learning Commission on April 7, 2025, in Chicago, Illinois. These administrators heard the moral case against DEI policies (some for the first time). Many walked out while others screamed or booed.

Public opinion has turned against DEI. It is tempting for DEI advocates to wish this reality away and call the DEI rollback part of the “white backlash.” Or claim that people just don’t want to learn real history. Or keep DEI in place under another name. Some administrators in academia are simply rebranding DEI as “community engagement” or “belonging centers.” But we all know what you are doing—it’s the same thing with a slightly different label.

DEI advocates are no doubt convinced of their position. They do not want to change. Their jobs depend on DEI policies. They think the DEI cause is righteous and central to the mission of higher education.

A majority of Americans find DEI policies objectionable, however. My home state of Idaho recently banned DEI policies, joining many states in passing sweeping bans. The recent dismantling of DEI at the University of Michigan may be a watershed moment for DEI in higher education. Michigan had been a leader in DEI advocacy, when measuring its funding of DEI initiatives and the number of DEI administrators on its payroll.

Something is happening here. What it is, is rather clear.

Let’s face facts: DEI advocates are increasingly in the minority. They are fighting rear-guard actions against a majority of people in the country, and in many states. They are fighting against democracy to preserve their DEI domain.

Might it not be better to understand why Americans are increasingly frustrated with the DEI regime? Might it not be better to recognize why DEI is so unpopular in America? There is common sense in the anti-DEI position that should be appreciated and understood.

The public philosophy implicit in DEI policies is traceable to what was once our reigning civil rights ideology—the disparate impact regime. Disparate impact ideology traces all disparities between groups—between blacks and whites, between men and women, for instance—to systemic discrimination.

When blacks do not attend a university in the same numbers as whites, that university is thought to be discriminatory. Perhaps it is admissions tests, a lack of role models, or insufficient marketing. The list goes on. DEI advocates promise to lessen these disparities by adopting race-conscious policies. Special scholarships are introduced to hire or admit more blacks, and programming is added that’s expressly aimed at attracting black faculty.

One interesting fact about DEI policies is that they do not work all that well on their own terms. I have written a number of articles about how inclusion policies, for instance, make people of all races feel that they do not belong on campus and how equity policies do not lead to equity. This happens at university after university, yet no one in the DEI industry seems to care.

My conclusion is that DEI policies are about cultural revolution, not results. This new culture—call it the diversity persuasion—is bad for the university.

Standards

Many have made the legitimate argument that the diversity persuasion detracts from merit-based institutions. It is difficult to maintain high standards of achievement and learning when an institution’s goal is erasing racial or sexual disparities. The result is grade inflation, lower levels of learning, and a host of other problems. For many, the attack on standards is the main problem with DEI.

DEI Lie

The problem with DEI goes deeper than just the compromising of standards. The idea that all disparities are traceable to discrimination is an obvious untruth—a lie. The greatest book proving this is Thomas Sowell’s Discrimination and Disparities. Sowell shows that different groups with somewhat different subcultures value and prioritize different things. Different groups have, on the whole, different talents, interests, and abilities. The world is multivariate, not unicausal.

Disciplinary Corruption

Disciplinary corruption is not the same thing as DEI policies. Disciplinary corruption is when DEI or critical theories become sown into a discipline’s professional standards. DEI policies are top-down demands from university administration.

The attempt by universities to impose a false ideology leads to intellectual corruption. When the diversity persuasion conquers a discipline, its findings and research concerns become increasingly corrupt and far removed from reality. Disciplines like history and English—which, when they focus on history and literature, are among the most vital studies in the world—become corrupt and lose their intellectual vitality when they focus on gender and race.

Social Harmony

DEI as an official policy makes social peace impossible to accomplish. Americans want to live in social harmony with one another, to tolerate one another. Reasonable attachment to our country and civilization must be cultivated. A reasonable patriotism—as opposed to a blood-and-soil patriotism—must be based in reality. We must all know and appreciate how the country serves our interests and makes good things possible.

DEI is an accusation against the country. It makes reasonable accommodations impossible, because it is a philosophy of endless accusations and endless demands.

Social Engineering

University administrators under the spell of DEI demand that the world conforms to a theory that is, at most, only partly true. This has much to do with the DEI lie. People and groups are somewhat different, which leads to disparities or gaps. That is the way of the world, which DEI fights against at every step.

For DEI advocates, since disparate impact is a problem the world over, everything ultimately must be brought under the control of the state or the university to eliminate disparities. Everything is presumptively illegal. Everything must be brought under the control of clumsy administrators who promise to make things right through tinkering and social engineering. This is why we have gotten an increasingly racialized set of bureaucratic and judicial edicts that impose handicaps and confer privileges based on race, sex, or group identity rather than the protection of individual rights. This is why the University of Michigan and other universities had DEI officials overseeing nearly every aspect of university operations.

Living the lie of DEI makes it necessary to remake the world to reflect its lies. Living according to a lie creates the need for endless, frustrating social engineering.

Decline in Trust

The rise of disparate impact ideology coincides with a terrific decline in public trust and mutual trust in our society. We have, under its auspices, gone from a high-trust to a low-trust society. This makes sense. DEI is based on a rejection of our heritage. It is anti-Enlightenment. It is anti-individual rights. It ultimately demands the control of thought and speech. It prefers a multicultural country, where we emphasize and celebrate our differences and try to make heritage Americans feel guilty about our colorblind constitutional principles and social norms. It emphasizes oppression so that people will become attached to a new, as-yet-to-be-seen country. And nowhere does this multicultural country embody the freedom, goodwill, and affection necessary to hold a people together in happy and peaceful coexistence.

Americans increasingly recognize this problem and are saying “enough.” Public servants should listen to those Americans as fellow citizens who want to achieve a workable social harmony in our country.

DEI and University Mission

The university’s chief missions are to promote workforce education, to promote professional education, to pass on an appreciation of our civilization, and to ensure basic numeracy and literacy. DEI is tangential to these missions. In fact, it compromises them. It teaches that workforce education is not honorable. It lowers standards for admission into professional schools. It undermines our civilizational heritage. It gives people excuses for not achieving basic numeracy and literacy.

The diversity persuasion is a bad public philosophy. It makes a reasonable patriotism difficult to cultivate. It promises a future of endless social engineering to bring about equal outcomes. It undermines America’s traditions of freedom, individual rights, and the rule of law. It undermines social harmony and public trust. Since DEI is based on a lie, it misshapes our minds, our laws, and our country, and makes our future worse. It is a cause of polarization. It is a solvent on social bonds. Things will only get worse in this country if we continue down the DEI road.

The alternative is a colorblind future. We should seize it. It’s what our laws and our culture demand. It is a workable solution. Gaps will still exist, but they will always exist. Universities should be open to all, of course, because that is precisely what is needed for a workable social harmony to emerge.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

The Cat Is Out Of The Bag At The University Of Arizona

By Craig J. Cantoni

Written by Craig J. Cantoni

The schools complain that they are struggling to carry out their educational missions due to being underfunded and the Trump administration cutting grants, which are a major source of revenue.

Yet, at the same time, they can afford to be in the money-losing professional sports business, a business that masquerades as amateur sports but is actually a farm team for the NBA and NFL. That’s certainly true for the Arizona Wildcats.

Every morning, I check my local news feeds for Tucson. Half the stories are typically about the Wildcats, including recent stories about exorbitant contracts being given to coaches. This is happening in a city with a high poverty rate, a low-wage economy, a significant homeless problem, abysmal test scores in the largest school district, and a progressive culture and politics that purport to care about social justice.

A recent story stripped away the masquerade and confirmed that college sports are no longer amateur. The story was written by veteran reporter Howard Fischer of Arizona Capitol Times. It is about a bill being considered in the Arizona House to allow “student-athletes” to make even more money than they are currently making.

Coincidentally, I recently read the 2010 book, “Scoreboard Baby: A Story of College Football, Crime, and Complicity.” The book describes in infuriating detail the crimes committed by thugs on the University of Washington football team, including the crimes of rape, domestic violence, drug dealing, armed robbery, animal cruelty, and DWI. Treated as heroes instead of criminals, their crimes were overlooked or excused by fans, university administrators, media, and prosecutors.

And in a story that has been told many times about college sports, the academic failures of the hero-thugs were also overlooked. They were allowed to take sham courses in order to maintain their athletic eligibility. For instance, they took several levels of a course on the Swahili language but only had to learn a word or two each semester in order to pass and get credit.

The book describes the culture in Seattle. It resembles Tucson in many ways. Excerpts:

[Seattle] believes a half-million people can reach consensus—a noble but silly sentiment that begs paralysis. Study, study, study, vote, vote, vote—repeat. While Seattle works to save the world, local projects wither and die.

More than half the adults have bachelor’s degrees. But a lot of those degree holders come from somewhere else. Seattle struggles to educate its own. School funding is a mess. Teacher salaries lag behind most of the country. A third of Seattle’s students don’t graduate from high school. Of those who do, only one in six meet the requirements to go to college.

In Seattle, it’s okay to be different. Pierce your eyebrows, tattoo whatever, wherever . . . Most of the city is gritty. The University District—or “U District,” more commonly—brings together, in one Seattle neighborhood, junkies and sorority sisters, homeless kids and aspiring doctors, smoke shops and vegetarian restaurants.

The U District’s main street is University Way, which locals call The Ave. The street offers just about anything you’d want to buy, see, or eat, or have done to your hair, body, or spirit. On The Ave you can find Bulgogi, BBQ short rib, stir-fried squid, Mongolian, Trinidadian, Brazilian, Pakistani, meth, marijuana, coffee, cocaine, Bento, falafel, gargoyles, bubble tea, greet-tea frozen yogurt wit granola on top, massage, a pregnancy clinic, Persian musical instruments, geochemical art, vintage clothing, body piercing, kabobs, sake, a sliver of an apartment with the address of 4736½,, a street ministry, Tai Chi, healing and meditation, drumming and energy dance, and lots of books, new and used.

Seattle is long way from Lincoln, Nebraska, or College Station, Texas. But when it comes to football, the differences disappear. Football is religion, and religion roams.

Seattle is also like Tucson in that college coaches are lionized and paid exorbitantly.

The cat is out of the bag at the University of Arizona—or I should say, the fat cats are out of the bag. The progressives at both the university and the City of Tucson care more about panem et circenses than social justice.

*****

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Critically Thinking about K-12 Books thumbnail

Critically Thinking about K-12 Books

By John Droz, Jr.

My response to a local example of K-12 book misinformation. 

I’ve written about the horrific corruption of K-12 library books and textbooks before (e.g., see here and here). This continues to be a very hot item as:

a) the Left has prioritized the subversion of our children’s minds,

b) major national forces (like the American Library Association*) are aggressively supporting this,

c) there is no well-coordinated, effective national response from the Right (like DOEd), and d) to date no State has passed adequate legislation to assure that K-12 libraries and classes only have age-appropriate books

Re “d”, remember that those who are calling for DOEd to be closed are saying to turn over the K-12 education to these same 50 states. This is one of many pieces of evidence that indicates that such a plan makes no sense.

Anyway, in my popular local newspaper, a citizen just wrote in complaining about supposed “book banning” in our county schools. Below is the Letter to the Editor (LTE) that I promptly sent in as a reply (and it was accepted).

Note five subtleties in my response:

  1. The person who wrote the initial LTE has an unusual name, so it’s not clear whether this is a man or a woman. Rather than use Woke pronouns, I refer to that individual as “the writer,” etc.
  2. Even though what they wrote was ignorant, I carefully called their beliefs wrong, rather than saying they were wrong. Big difference!
  3. Although this fight is about values (as Judeo-Christian values are being assaulted), I avoided using that word, as it is more likely to stir emotions. Instead, I am making the focus on the age-appropriateness of books, etc. which is less flammable.
  4. In an attempt to make the age-appropriateness more understandable, I repeatedly used a specific example: an eight-year-old child. I purposefully added the “child” part to further emphasize the age disparity.
  5. Many of those on the Right who are involved with this issue, focus on books that are sexually inappropriate. IMO this is a strategic mistake, as there are several other subject areas that make a book age-inappropriate. Broadening the issue expands our support. See my examples below.

A famous golf axiom is that almost all golf bets are won (or lost) before even teeing off. The reason is that the stipulated conditions will favor one golfer over the other.

In this day and age of rampant political misinformation, this is a favorite tactic used: to mischaracterize an issue in a way that stacks the deck in favor of the complainer. Such an example appeared in a Carteret News-Times (NC) LTE on 4-12-25. The earnest writer pleaded against “book banning” — but there was no such action being taken or considered!

The one — and only — issue regarding K-12 library books and textbooks is: is the book material age-appropriate for the children involved?

For example, it is not age-appropriate for books available to an 8-year-old child to include such content as gratuitous violence, drug promotion, profanity, self-mutilation, beastiality, etc.

Consider three facts:

  1. the American Library Association explicitly states on their website that they do not believe in age-appropriateness* [so we can see where the problem lies],
  2. for decades, movies have been labeled by age-appropriateness [and exactly who has been harmed by such labeling?], and
  3. local schools are not “banning” any books.

Regarding #3: a) just because an author writes a book, they are not entitled to have it purchased with taxpayer dollars to be in every US K-12 school, b) purchased books should be clearly marked as to which age they are appropriate for, and c) if a school does not have every book that a parent would like their child to read, parents can obtain said books on their own, for their child. So nothing is “banned.”

Lastly, regarding other opinions expressed by the writer:

  1. Not having books on depraved violence, etc. available for an 8-year-old child does not “cause them to read less.” I contend that it is exactly the opposite.
  2. Not having books on drug advocacy, etc. available for an 8-year-old child does not “hinder their critical thinking.” Eight-year-olds do not have the experience and maturity to perform critical thinking on such material.
  3. “Educators are handicapped due to a decline in available books.” There are thousands of age-appropriate books for every age group of K-12 students, so if that is an educator’s experience they should solicit their library to buy more of the many age-appropriate books that are out there.
  4. “Reading diverse books helps develop a strong sense of self and empathy for others.” Agreed, as long as they are age-appropriate.

If this writer (and others of a similar mindset) would apply Critical Thinking to this issue, they will see the overwhelming evidence that age-appropriateness is the main criterion that should be carefully applied to textbooks and library books in our K-12 schools.

{FYI, for those who are not subscribed to my free popular twice-a-month Newsletter (see below), in the last issue I posted a link to good people who are trying to identify some of the many objectionable books, by State and by school in each State. It is a work in progress. Please make a donation.}

* K-12 school librarians play a key role as to which books are purchased for the school library. Most of these librarians are also members of the American Library Association (ALA). The ALA adamantly opposes the concept of age-appropriateness! Their website makes it crystal clear what their official position is:

Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: “Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.”

The question is: is a K-12 school librarian acting in the interests of parents and school children, or are they an agent disseminating ALA ideology?

©2025   All rights reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

The post Critically Thinking about K-12 Books appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

‘Will Not Surrender’: Harvard Scoffs At Trump Admin’s Demands To Address Antisemitism thumbnail

‘Will Not Surrender’: Harvard Scoffs At Trump Admin’s Demands To Address Antisemitism

By The Daily Caller

Harvard University announced Monday it will not agree to the Trump administration’s demands to address antisemitism on campus.

The Department of Education (ED) sent a letter to the Ivy League school April 11 demanding the school agree to a host of reforms, including adjusting and enforcing disciplinary processes, improving screening of international students for “hostile” views and auditing “programs with egregious records of antisemitism.” Harvard cited academic freedom concerns and free speech rights in its announcement rejecting ED’s demands.

“We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement,” Harvard president Alan Garber wrote in the announcement. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

ED, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the General Services Administration (GSA) initiated in late March a review of more than $8.7 billion worth of grants to Harvard after a September investigation by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that “Harvard failed” to discipline students who engaged in antisemitic campus protests. Harvard demonstrators disrupted classes, occupied a campus building and a set up a multi-day encampment.

At the time of the Committee’s investigation, none of the 68 students referred for discipline action regarding their role in the spring semester encampment were suspended.

In its letter to ED, Harvard stated it “is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry” on campus and that it “has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures” to address such incidents.

Following the Trump administration’s announcement of Harvard’s grant review, the university preemptively ran to Wall Street, issuing bonds to the tune of $750 million. Harvard has an endowment of over $53 billion.

“Harvard has served as a symbol of the American Dream for generations – the pinnacle aspiration for students all over the world to work hard and earn admission to the storied institution,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in March when announcing the review of the school’s grants. “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination – all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry – has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.”

ED has already revoked funding from several other Ivy League universities over their noncompliance with civil rights laws and federal directives, slashing millions from ColumbiaCornell and Princeton.

The Trump administration has been committed to rooting our antisemitism on college campuses after violent protests were allowed to go on for over a year unchecked. In February, the administration assembled the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, made up of the ED, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS. The task force stated its “first priority will be to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses” and has since begun its review of schools’ compliance with civil rights enforcement.

The following month, ED sent letters to 60 universities warning them of “potential enforcement actions” if they did not step up to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination.

A Harvard spokesman referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to the university’s announcement in response to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Calculated Plan Of Destruction’: Twelve Anti-Israel Student Protesters Charged With Felonies

Trump Admin Nabs Another Alleged Pro-Hamas Student Protester

Harvard Severs Its Partnership with Antisemitic ‘Palestinian’ Birzeit University

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


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

The Left’s War on the Family: A Threat to Our Future

By The Editors

/by

Published by The American Spectator | March 7, 2023

The left’s war on the family is reaching new heights of absurdity, with progressive activists pushing for policies that would undermine the very foundation of our society. From advocating for the abolition of the nuclear family to pushing for the sexualization of children, these radicals are hell-bent on destroying the traditional values that have made America great. As George Neumayr argues in his latest piece, the left’s assault on the family is a threat to our very future, as it seeks to replace the love and stability of the home with the cold, impersonal hand of the state. It’s time for conservatives to stand up and defend the family, before it’s too late.

Key Takeaways

  • The left is pushing policies that would undermine the foundation of our society.
  • The assault on the family is a threat to our future.
  • Conservatives must defend the family before it’s too late.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

0 0 The Editors 2025-04-14 20:23:10The Left’s War on the Family: A Threat to Our Future

Reclaiming Your Time: Work-Life Balance and Boundaries for Teachers thumbnail

Reclaiming Your Time: Work-Life Balance and Boundaries for Teachers

By My Pay. My Say.

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Teaching can be incredibly rewarding. You get to shape young minds, build meaningful relationships, and leave a lasting impact. But it can also leave you emotionally and physically drained. The constant pressure to show up for your students, adapt to new demands, and do more with less can take a toll.

More and more teachers are experiencing burnout, and it’s not because they care too little, it’s because they care deeply, often at the expense of their own well-being.

In this article, we’ll explore what teacher burnout looks like, how to set time boundaries that support your health, and how AI tools for teachers can help you reclaim hours each week.

What Teacher Burnout Feels Like

Teacher burnout isn’t just about being tired. It’s the kind of exhaustion that doesn’t go away with a good night’s sleep. It’s showing up every day already worn out, running on empty, and feeling like there’s no space to breathe. It’s feeling guilty for needing time to yourself, even though you’ve given everything you have.

According to a recent survey from the RAND Corporation, nearly six in ten teachers report feeling frequent job-related stress. Many say the demands of the job extend well beyond the school day, with lesson planning, grading, and parent communication eating into evenings and weekends.

For Tom, a high school math teacher, work-life balance means accepting that perfection isn’t always possible.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Sometimes you have to buck your own system. You will never get everything done that you “have” to do, so you have to draw the line somewhere. There are times that, despite my assignment policies, I hit the “set all grades to…” button and just be done with it.”

Setting Boundaries That Stick

Boundaries are not about caring less. They’re about protecting your time, your energy, and your ability to keep doing this work long-term. Setting boundaries as a teacher can feel uncomfortable at first, especially in a profession where “going above and beyond” is often expected. But boundaries are what allow you to keep showing up without burning out.

Start by figuring out where you’re losing time. Are you checking emails late at night? Spending Sunday afternoons grading papers?

Try small changes like:

  • Committing to no grading after 7:00 p.m.
  • Turning off work email notifications outside of school hours
  • Setting clear expectations for when and how parents can reach you
  • Scheduling planning periods like appointments (non-negotiable and protected)

Stephanie, a high school English teacher, shared this:

“I avoid school email after work hours and only grade what I can fit into my prep time. It helps to create strong rubrics for essays to shorten your time when grading writing. Model good writing for students so they know the expectation.”

Matthew, who also teaches high school English, keeps his boundaries simple.

“Leave work at work and leave home at home.”

Once you’ve set those boundaries, communicate them clearly and respectfully. A kind, consistent message builds trust and helps others understand your limits. The more consistently you hold them, the easier it becomes.

Tech That Gives You Time Back

One of the hardest things about teaching is the pressure to do everything yourself. You create the lessons, grade the work, write the emails, manage the behavior, handle the data, attend the meetings, and prepare for the next day. No wonder there’s never enough time.

It doesn’t have to be that way. You can take a few things off your plate without lowering the quality of your instruction. Today’s teacher AI tools can handle repetitive, time-consuming tasks so you can focus on your students. From grading quizzes to writing rubrics to drafting emails, AI can work in the background while you get your time back.

One of the easiest ways to try this is with AI lesson planning. Our Lesson Plan Generator builds customizable, standards-aligned plans in minutes. You can use them as-is or treat them as a starting point to personalize. Either way, you save hours each week and reduce the stress of always starting from scratch.

Chelly, a high school teacher in Pennsylvania, shared that she’s always looking for ways to simplify without sacrificing quality. When she can set something up ahead of time, like a quiz in Google Forms or her school’s learning management system, she does. Auto-grading multiple choice questions and having scores upload automatically saves her hours and helps her stay focused on the moments that matter.

Making Time for What Matters Most

Reclaiming your time isn’t about doing less. It’s about making space for the things that recharge you, like rest, spending time with family, hobbies, or simply a quiet moment to yourself. When the workday ends, your time should feel like your own again.

Even small changes can open up space you didn’t realize you had. Teachers have shared that setting just one non-negotiable evening a week for personal time helped them feel more present and less overwhelmed. Others have started taking short weekend trips, unplugging from school email, or getting back into a creative hobby. It doesn’t have to be drastic to be meaningful.

And when you do find time to rest, don’t forget about the perks available to you. There are plenty of teacher discounts on travel, dining, entertainment, and more. Take advantage of them. You’ve earned it!

The bottom line

Protecting your time is an important investment in your well-being, your career, and your students.

It’s easy to feel like there’s no time to slow down, especially when your to-do list never seems to shrink. But even small changes can lead to real relief. Setting a firm end time for your workday, using AI tools to handle repetitive tasks, or choosing one night a week to fully unplug can make a meaningful difference. You don’t have to overhaul your routine overnight. You just have to start somewhere.

You deserve time to rest, recharge, and reconnect with the parts of your life that exist outside of school. We’re here to help make that possible. Explore our Teacher Resource Hub and see what a difference the right support can make.

*****

This article was published by My Pay. My Say. and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Work-Life Balance for Teachers Starts With Boundaries thumbnail

Work-Life Balance for Teachers Starts With Boundaries

By My Pay. My Say.

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Teaching can be incredibly rewarding. You get to shape young minds, build meaningful relationships, and leave a lasting impact. But it can also leave you emotionally and physically drained. The constant pressure to show up for your students, adapt to new demands, and do more with less can take a toll.

More and more teachers are experiencing burnout, and it’s not because they care too little, it’s because they care deeply, often at the expense of their own well-being.

In this article, we’ll explore what teacher burnout looks like, how to set time boundaries that support your health, and how AI tools for teachers can help you reclaim hours each week.

What Teacher Burnout Feels Like

Teacher burnout isn’t just about being tired. It’s the kind of exhaustion that doesn’t go away with a good night’s sleep. It’s showing up every day already worn out, running on empty, and feeling like there’s no space to breathe. It’s feeling guilty for needing time to yourself, even though you’ve given everything you have.

According to a recent survey from the RAND Corporation, nearly six in ten teachers report feeling frequent job-related stress. Many say the demands of the job extend well beyond the school day, with lesson planning, grading, and parent communication eating into evenings and weekends.

For Tom, a high school math teacher, work-life balance means accepting that perfection isn’t always possible.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Sometimes you have to buck your own system. You will never get everything done that you “have” to do, so you have to draw the line somewhere. There are times that, despite my assignment policies, I hit the “set all grades to…” button and just be done with it.”

Setting Boundaries That Stick

Boundaries are not about caring less. They’re about protecting your time, your energy, and your ability to keep doing this work long-term. Setting boundaries as a teacher can feel uncomfortable at first, especially in a profession where “going above and beyond” is often expected. But boundaries are what allow you to keep showing up without burning out.

Start by figuring out where you’re losing time. Are you checking emails late at night? Spending Sunday afternoons grading papers?

Try small changes like:

  • Committing to no grading after 7:00 p.m.
  • Turning off work email notifications outside of school hours
  • Setting clear expectations for when and how parents can reach you
  • Scheduling planning periods like appointments (non-negotiable and protected)

Stephanie, a high school English teacher, shared this:

“I avoid school email after work hours and only grade what I can fit into my prep time. It helps to create strong rubrics for essays to shorten your time when grading writing. Model good writing for students so they know the expectation.”

Matthew, who also teaches high school English, keeps his boundaries simple.

“Leave work at work and leave home at home.”

Once you’ve set those boundaries, communicate them clearly and respectfully. A kind, consistent message builds trust and helps others understand your limits. The more consistently you hold them, the easier it becomes.

Tech That Gives You Time Back

One of the hardest things about teaching is the pressure to do everything yourself. You create the lessons, grade the work, write the emails, manage the behavior, handle the data, attend the meetings, and prepare for the next day. No wonder there’s never enough time.

It doesn’t have to be that way. You can take a few things off your plate without lowering the quality of your instruction. Today’s teacher AI tools can handle repetitive, time-consuming tasks so you can focus on your students. From grading quizzes to writing rubrics to drafting emails, AI can work in the background while you get your time back.

One of the easiest ways to try this is with AI lesson planning. Our Lesson Plan Generator builds customizable, standards-aligned plans in minutes. You can use them as-is or treat them as a starting point to personalize. Either way, you save hours each week and reduce the stress of always starting from scratch.

Chelly, a high school teacher in Pennsylvania, shared that she’s always looking for ways to simplify without sacrificing quality. When she can set something up ahead of time, like a quiz in Google Forms or her school’s learning management system, she does. Auto-grading multiple choice questions and having scores upload automatically saves her hours and helps her stay focused on the moments that matter.

Making Time for What Matters Most

Reclaiming your time isn’t about doing less. It’s about making space for the things that recharge you, like rest, spending time with family, hobbies, or simply a quiet moment to yourself. When the workday ends, your time should feel like your own again.

Even small changes can open up space you didn’t realize you had. Teachers have shared that setting just one non-negotiable evening a week for personal time helped them feel more present and less overwhelmed. Others have started taking short weekend trips, unplugging from school email, or getting back into a creative hobby. It doesn’t have to be drastic to be meaningful.

And when you do find time to rest, don’t forget about the perks available to you. There are plenty of teacher discounts on travel, dining, entertainment, and more. Take advantage of them. You’ve earned it!

The bottom line

Protecting your time is an important investment in your well-being, your career, and your students.

It’s easy to feel like there’s no time to slow down, especially when your to-do list never seems to shrink. But even small changes can lead to real relief. Setting a firm end time for your workday, using AI tools to handle repetitive tasks, or choosing one night a week to fully unplug can make a meaningful difference. You don’t have to overhaul your routine overnight. You just have to start somewhere.

You deserve time to rest, recharge, and reconnect with the parts of your life that exist outside of school. We’re here to help make that possible. Explore our Teacher Resource Hub and see what a difference the right support can make.

*****

This article was published by My Pay. My Say. and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Critically Thinking About Success: Part 2 thumbnail

Critically Thinking About Success: Part 2

By John Droz, Jr.

Applying the Success Equation to U.S. K-12 Education. 

This is a follow-up to Critically Thinking about Success (Part 1). I’m following the same format, but looking at how we can achieve success by relatively quickly fixing America’s totally broken K-12 education system…

I’ve always had a fascination with why certain people stood out from the crowd and were successful. As I developed my Critical Thinking skills, I researched and paid attention to what common traits these people had — and applied them to a variety of issues that I’ve dealt with.

I contend if we follow the five Traits below, that will maximize our chances of success regarding what to do with the Department of Education (DOEd)…

Successful people are often called dreamers — as they see possibilities that almost everyone else discards as pie-in-the-sky. But their dreams have at least three characteristics:

a) they are precise (not vague),

b) they are aspirational, and

c) they are within reason. These three attributes help a believer to stay focused on their vision.

The VISION is: to transform DOEd so that it facilitates a significant improvement of the US K-12 education system, within five (5) years.

As with almost all visions of successful people, the vast majority of citizens will be skeptical that this can be done. They will have an array of excuses (like the fifteen listed here), but to Critical Thinkers, there are legitimate counters to every concern regarding DOEd.

One way or another, almost everything has already been done before. (In fact, many historians look at history as a collection of repetitious cycles. A related famous saying is: “If you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.”)

There are two primary ways of learning: Education or Experience. I found that those who are successful maximize the education part. In other words, a significant key to success is to learn as much as possible from the failures and accomplishments of others.

Most people are saying something like: “Get rid of DOEd because they have been a disaster.” That statement is absolutely true, but is getting rid of DOEd our best option to bring about our Vision? Unequivocally NO!

Critical Thinkers will approach this situation by saying: “Let’s identify and learn from the multitude of DOEd mistakes made in the past — and see that the transformed DOEd avoids those pitfalls.”

For example, Critical Thinkers will notice that DOEd never spelled out what the top priorities were for our K-12 education system! That is a simply stunning omission that explains a lot.

The good news is that this is easy to fix quickly. This error is compounded by the fact that when I read the Mission Statements of all fifty State Education Departments, there is zero uniformity among these!

So a powerful role that DOEd can play is leadership. The goal would be to get all States to have the same K-12 education objectives. How they achieve them will be left up to each State. See fifteen examples where DOEd leadership can be an extraordinary game changer.

We ALL have been presented with (and will continue to be in the future) multiple opportunities. Unfortunately, many people don’t recognize most opportunities until they are in the rearview mirror. Successful people have developed the acuity to recognize a much greater selection of opportunities than others do.

We literally have in our grasp a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to quickly and substantially improve the American K-12 education system. Again please carefully read fifteen powerful examples of what can easily be done.

To not take full advantage of this opportunity will in the future be looked at as a watershed mistake in American history. To consciously choose to make the situation worse (by turning over K-12 education to some fifty failing bureaucracies) would be criminal.

There are talkers and doers… Recognition of opportunities is an essential matter — but it is for naught if it isn’t acted on.

As a physicist, I can tell you that one of the fundamental principles of physics is the Law of Inertia. Basically what it means is that it takes more energy (effort) to get a stopped object to move forward, than it takes to get an already moving object to continue to move forward. The same applies to organizations. If their leaders are in a moving forward mindset, they will be more open to opportunities than someone who is defensively protecting their turf, or who simply decides a priori that something can’t be done, is too much trouble, etc.

The facts are that DOEd Secretary Linda McMahon:

1) can fire anyone at DOEd,

2) can hire anyone for DOEd,

3) can establish whatever policies and procedures she wants,

4) can spend $80± BILLION of annual discretionary funds anyway she sees fit, etc., etc.

What this means is that Linda can scrap the entire DOEd and start over —with essentially full control over every important aspect of it. In other words, Linda has the power to transform DOEd into a major beneficial force regarding American K-12 education.

This needs to be fully appreciated as an unprecedented opportunity, which requires prompt, meaningful action on her part to have DOEd blossom into a fabulously powerful force for good.

Every lofty goal comes with an assortment of obstacles. If they weren’t there everyone else would be doing it, and it would no longer be a lofty goal — it would be an everyday matter. So having a positive, persistent attitude is a key attribute of successful people.

There will be obstructions and obstacles in transforming DOEd into what it should be — like a large collection of vocal naysayers who lack the vision of how to convert DOEd into a major success.

We need to keep our eye on the prize, which means staying focused on the extraordinary benefits to America from starting to annually graduate 4± million well-educated, thinking citizens (instead of what’s happening now: annually graduating 4± million non-thinking citizens who are indoctrinated with progressive ideology). Reversing those figures would be profoundly beneficial to America’s future.

There are no guarantees in life. Even if you adopt the above five traits, unforeseen circumstances might derail an otherwise good plan. I have a few adages I adhere to, and the most important one is: “Work as if everything depends on you, but pray as if everything depends on God.”

The benefits from properly transforming DOEd reimburse every cost and sacrifice at least a hundred times over. All we need is the vision and an unwavering commitment to make it happen.

©2025   All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Harvard, Columbia Plunge in Law School Rankings Amid Anti-Semitism Backlash thumbnail

Harvard, Columbia Plunge in Law School Rankings Amid Anti-Semitism Backlash

By NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story

Both Ivy League schools received poor marks on the Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 campus anti-Semitism report card, with Harvard earning a “C” and Columbia a “D.” 

Harvard and Columbia Law Schools both plummeted in the 2025 U.S. News ranking amid ongoing controversies over campus anti-Semitism, while Vanderbilt University and the University of Texas at Austin joined the prestigious “T14” list.

Harvard slipped to No. 6—its lowest ranking ever—while Columbia fell to No. 10.

By contrast, Vanderbilt and UT Austin—which work to combat campus anti-Semitism, according to the Anti-Defamation League—climbed 5 and 2 spots, respectively, to tie for No. 14.

The ranking marks Vanderbilt’s first-ever appearance in the “T14,” a longstanding label for the top 14 law schools in the United States, according to legal commentator David Lat.

The shake-up for Harvard and Columbia comes as the schools have faced public scrutiny over their repeated failure to protect Jewish students and rein in anti-Semitic protests on campus.

The Trump administration, which has pledged to cut funding from universities that fail to curb anti-Semitism, revoked more than $430 million in federal funds from Columbia and is reviewing nearly $9 billion in contracts and grants at Harvard.

Both Ivy League schools received poor marks on the Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 campus anti-Semitism report card, with Harvard earning a “C” and Columbia a “D.”

The ADL evaluated 135 universities based on their administrative policies, responses to anti-Semitic incidents, and protections for Jewish students.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump taps Yehuda Kaploun as U.S. antisemitism envoy

California Public School District Enables Antisemitic Bullying

EDITORS NOTE: This World Israel News column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Critically Thinking About Success thumbnail

Critically Thinking About Success

By John Droz, Jr.

Plus some tidbits from my personal experiences. 

I’ve always had a fascination with why certain people stood out from the crowd and were successful. As I developed my Critical Thinking skills, I researched and paid attention to what were common traits these people had — and applied them to myself. I’m sharing these with you and then will show an example of how I personally utilized this information.

[Note: The example I am citing below is financial success, but the traits apply to any type of success.]

Successful people are often called dreamers — as they see possibilities that almost everyone else discards as pie-in-the-sky. But their dreams have at least three characteristics:

a) they are precise (not vague),

b) they are aspirational, and

c) they are within reason (not that you are going to beat Tiger Woods’ golf records).

These three attributes help a believer to stay focused on their vision.

When I was 25 my vision was: I wanted to be able to retire by the time I was 40.

I had an interesting job at GE Aerospace (and was soon promoted to management), but I had other interests in life. To be able to enjoy them, I needed to be financially independent, so that I would be able to go where I wanted, and do what I wanted, when I wanted. I shared my vision with some co-workers and friends. They smiled and said: “That’s nice — good luck with that!”

Even though I didn’t know anyone who retired by 40 (through their own efforts), this was a high goal that I was quite sure was doable if I adequately applied myself to it.

One way or another, almost everything has already been done before. (In fact, many historians look at history as a collection of repetitious cycles. A related famous saying is: “If you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.”) There are two primary ways of learning: Education or Experience. I found that those who are successful maximize the education part. In other words, a significant key to success is to learn as much as possible from the accomplishments and failures of others.

After considering (and in some cases trying out) several strategies to bring about retirement by 40, I decided to invest in real estate. A critically thinking person knows that a trial and error (i.e., the experience) approach to real estate investing (or any other such option) likely takes way too long (putting at risk my goal of 40), and will also likely result in unnecessary financial and other setbacks that could jeopardize the whole plan.

I did not have the benefit of knowing anyone who had done this, so I chose to learn from strangers. I went to a local bookstore and bought every book they had on investing in real estate. Over the next year or so I carefully read some fifty of those books. Some books were fabulous and others I maybe only picked up one good idea. However, my perspective was that one usable idea could give me $10,000 profit — so that was a good return on a $20 investment (for the book) and 3± hours of reading.

We ALL have been presented with (and will continue to be in the future) multiple opportunities. Unfortunately, many people don’t recognize most opportunities until they are in the rearview mirror. Successful people have developed the acuity to recognize a much greater selection of opportunities than others do.

I was in rural upstate NY, which was not identified by anyone as a hot spot for real estate investing. That said, my real estate investment crash course (the 50± books) gave me some ideas about what to look for. Before buying any property I also created my own documents that would help me assess opportunities — like a Return on Investment (ROI) form.

BTW, some of the 50± books I read were on Income Taxes, as understanding (and taking advantage of) tax laws is a very important part of a successful real estate investment strategy. It also clarified for me what category of real estate I should be investing in.

There are talkers and doers… Recognition of opportunities is an essential matter — but it is for naught if it isn’t acted on.

As a physicist, I can tell you that one of the fundamental principles of physics is the Law of Inertia. Basically what it means is that it takes more energy (effort) to get a stopped object to move forward, than it takes to get an already moving object to continue to move forward. The same applies to people. If you are in a moving forward mindset, you will be more open to opportunities than someone who is defensively protecting their turf, or who simply decides a priori that something can’t be done, is too much trouble, etc.

All the planning in the world means little if you aren’t willing to jump into the deep end. Shortly after the book education phase, I started making offers on select real estate properties. The details of getting appropriate real estate brokers, lawyers, banks, etc. is too long to go into here, but I also did that.

Before I got married (age 26) I had purchased my first real estate investment, as well as a home. My wife was on board and was supportive in several ways. We were on our way!

Every lofty goal comes with an assortment of obstacles. If they weren’t there everyone else would be doing it, and it would no longer be a lofty goal — it would be an everyday matter. So having a positive, persistent attitude is a key attribute of successful people.

From the get-go, I had several challenges regarding my real estate investing plan. One example is that I had limited cash to buy properties. As a 25-year-old, I had already started saving but had not had enough years to accumulate an appreciable amount. Once again I turned to the 50± books I had read for clever ideas on leveraging, etc.

There were multiple other problems to deal with. For example, we bought a home in November, that had been shut down. The Realtor assured us that the water had been properly drained. I worked on upgrading the unheated home over the Winter. In the Spring when I turned on the water, I ended up having to repair some 40 pipe breaks and leaks — some within walls. Ugh. The water had only been shut off, not properly drained. Lesson learned.

There are no guarantees in life. Even if you adopt the above five traits, unforeseen circumstances might derail an otherwise good plan. I have a few adages I adhere to, and the most important one is: “Work as if everything depends on you, but pray as if everything depends on God.” This perspective has worked for me, but you decide what’s best for you.

Here is the result of my real estate saga. Since I was paying close attention (not just robotically going forward), I realized when I was 34 that I had attained my goal of financial independence — several years ahead of schedule. So I formally retired from my management job at GE. (I remember at my exit interview the higher level manager told me that he thought my “retirement” was a ploy to get a promotion. Funny.) My wife also retired from her executive secretary position at a major manufacturing company.

Subsequently, many people asked how we were able to retire at age 34. If they seemed to be genuinely interested I would outline the plan I adopted. To this day I’m surprised how many people’s first reaction was something like “You were lucky!”

A careful reader will know that luck had very little to do with it…

The plan for my next Substack commentary is to show how success with the failing US K-12 education system is finally in our grasp — but it means applying the above five traits.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

EXCLUSIVE: University Of Kentucky Offers To Violate State Law To Trans Kids — Changes Tune When Reporter Notices thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: University Of Kentucky Offers To Violate State Law To Trans Kids — Changes Tune When Reporter Notices

By The Daily Caller

The University of Kentucky’s hospital system hypothetically offered to provide transgender services to a child, which would constitute a violation of state law, according to an investigation by the Daily Caller.

A staff member for the UK HealthCare Department of Family and Community Medicine at Circle told the Caller on March 31 that they would schedule an appointment for hormone therapy for a hypothetical 15-year-old child.

“Um, yes, we do have trans … health at Circle,” the staff member said during a phone conversation.

“I also wanted to say that he’s also 15, I wasn’t sure if that changes anything,” a Caller reporter stated.

The staff member replied, “It does not.”

When asked specifically what services Circle provides, the staff member explained, “Hormone therapy — we don’t do the surgeries but we do have a facility that does surgery.”

Republicans in the Kentucky legislature passed a law in 2023 that would ban sex change surgeries, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers for patients under 18. Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the legislation, but the legislature overrode his veto in March 2023. Beshear claimed the ban would “endanger the children of Kentucky.”

The University of Kentucky said in a statement to the Caller the next day, April 1, that they follow state law, as well as President Donald Trump’s executive order pulling federal funding from healthcare facilities that provide gender transition services to minors.

“The University complies with State Law and President Trump’s Executive Order on Gender Affirming Care,” Kristi Willett, the executive director of public relations for the University of Kentucky, told the Caller.

Trump signed an executive order Jan. 28 prohibiting federal funding from going to hospitals and healthcare facilities that offered sex changes to minors. The order was paused in late February after two federal judges issued preliminary injunctions in response to legal challenges against the president’s action. A Daily Caller investigation found that more than three dozen hospitals were still offering the services to minors.

EXCLUSIVE: More than three dozen children’s hospitals continue to provide sex changes for minors as @realDonaldTrump‘s executive order moving to defund “gender affirming care” is under a preliminary injunction

Some hospitals confirmed to @DailyCaller that they are still… pic.twitter.com/yNIK73MvGA

— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) March 19, 2025

Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said in a statement that hospitals who “chemically and surgically mutilate” children “should be held accountable.”

“Protecting Kentucky kids is not up for debate. President Trump and Kentucky lawmakers took decisive actions to end this permanent, life-altering harm. Any medical professional who chemically and surgically mutilates vulnerable children in secret or under the guise of some rebranded effort should be held accountable,” Cameron told the Caller.

The Caller called UK HealthCare’s Circle clinic again on April 2, the day after receiving a statement from the university denying that they were violating state law. This time, the Caller was given a different story as to whether or not they are still providing “gender affirming care.”

“I just spoke with my manager and she said there is a new law where apparently they have to be over 18 for hormone therapy,” a staff member said. “They could still be scheduled in the clinic but they would not be able to do the hormone therapy.”

Republican Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman did not respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

Amber Duke

Senior Editor. Follow Amber on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Press Team Won’t Respond to Emails with ‘Preferred Pronouns’ in Signature

EXCLUSIVE: Children’s Hospitals Continue Offering Sex Changes After Trump Moved To Defund Procedures

Why Senator Rick Scott Shut Down Our Christian Film About the LGBT Agenda

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

Report: Leftists, Foreign Adversaries Fund Anti-Semitic and Anti-American Protests, Online Hate thumbnail

Report: Leftists, Foreign Adversaries Fund Anti-Semitic and Anti-American Protests, Online Hate

By Family Research Council

November’s election revealed that more Americans are waking up to common sense and rejecting leftist priorities. An increasing number of young people appreciate our democratic republic, its freedoms, and its Judeo-Christian values. Yet we see continued leftist, violent protests against Israel and Jewish students on college campuses. Where does this hatred come from, and who is organizing it?

As The Washington Stand has previously reported, leftist billionaires such George Soros, Howard Horowitz, and Susan and Nick Pritzker are major funders of these demonstrations, paying extremist, anti-Semitic groups across the United States to organize protests. Just a small sample of these organizations include Students for Justice in Palestine, U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, American Muslims for Palestine, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Tides Center, and Arab Resource & Organizing Center.

Yet not only are these groups anti-Semitic, they are also anti-American. Last week, Capital Research Center released a new study that explains how groups that call themselves “pro-Palestinian” promote violence and anti-Americanism. They analyzed thousands of social media posts by 496 of the most active “pro-Palestinian” groups and activists, many of them connected to “charities” and nonprofits, and found a 3,000% rise in calls for violence and a 186% increase in the use of anti-American and anti-police keywords and phrases since Hamas’s terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023.

Last week on Fox & Friends, UCLA Jewish student Eli Tsives told Brian Kilmeade:

“People are waking up and realizing that these people … it’s not just the fact that they have a problem with Jews, it’s that they have a problem with anyone who loves our dear country, the USA. And we have to understand why these people have this mentality. They are literally being brainwashed from foreign countries, and I mean the students specifically. We’re seeing foreign countries like Qatar donating between 2001 and 2021 $5 billion to American institutions.”

Tsives went on to explain that when Qatar donates a lot of money and a university like Cornell has an opening for their Middle Eastern department, Qatar will say, “We would like you to hire our professor who has a PhD from Doha University.” That professor then teaches anti-American, anti-Semitic views, and the students become indoctrinated.

The nonpartisan organization, Americans for Public Trust, verifies that foreign countries are funding anti-American and anti-Semitic groups on college campuses. They recently released a study that found that $60 billion is the estimated amount of foreign funds that have been going to American universities. Of that $60 billion, $20 billion went to just 10 schools: Harvard University, Cornell University, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, Yale University, Georgetown University, and Columbia University.

Muslim journalist and founder of the Pearl Project, Asra Nomani, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5 that these leftist billionaires and foreign countries are so influential and effective, she considers them an anti-Semitic “industry.” Nomani has been researching what is behind the hatred against Jews for the last 22 years, since her friend and colleague, Daniel Pearl, was murdered by Muslim jihadists shortly after 9/11.

Nomani has counted 1,500 groups in the anti-Semitic “free Palestine” movement that attacks both Republicans and Democrats. She warned:

“The hate that killed Danny Pearl on the streets of Karachi is now in our streets. It’s on our campuses. It’s a frightening network of the far Left and the Islamist groups. Nobody in this room can support their ideals. Their ideals are against individual liberties and free enterprise. They want to destroy the United States of America. They want to destroy Israel. And our young Jewish students on campuses, our younger Dannys, are in their crosshairs. We must recognize this existential threat. It is a network. We must investigate them. We must have them register with the Foreign Agent Registration Act when they are doing the work of these malign foreign actors that want to destroy America.”

Not only are some Middle Eastern countries and Hamas fueling anti-Semitic and anti-American hate in America, but so are China and other American adversaries. Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing about worldwide threats, featuring testimonies from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. As Patel was about to give his introductory statement, two Code Pink protestors disrupted the hearing, proclaiming among other things, “The greatest threat to global security is Israel and the whole world knows it,” followed repeatedly with, “Stop funding Israel!” The Capitol police promptly removed both disrupters.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) immediately pointed out that the disrupters were Code Pink protestors, funded by communist China. He explained, “The fact that communist China funds Code Pink which interrupts a hearing like this about Israel simply illustrate Director Gabbard’s point that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other American adversaries are working in concert to a greater degree than they ever have.”

Thankfully, President Trump took strong, decisive action to fight anti-Semitism and terrorism on his very first day in office when he issued Executive Order 14161, titled “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have since begun arresting college students that are in the United States on visa that are supporting terrorism, and they are being held in ICE detention centers.

In addition, Columbia University students and parents of October 7 hostages filed a lawsuit on March 24, declaring that there is a coordinated campaign of support between several American nonprofit organizations, anti-Israel activists (including arrested Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil), and Hamas. According to The Free Press, “[T]he lawsuit notes one plaintiff, Shlomi Ziv, was taken hostage on October 7 and that his captors ‘bragged about having Hamas operatives on American university campuses’ and ‘showed him Al-Jazeera stories and photographs of protests at Columbia University,’ organized by the various defendants.”

The Trump administration has also started pulling federal grants from universities that are allowing anti-Semitic protests on their campuses, referring to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which does not allow institutions of higher education to receive federal money if they  discriminate based on race, national origin, religion, or other characteristics.

This freezing of funds is already proving effective. In early March, the Department of Education canceled $400 million in grants and contracts with Columbia University because of their “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” Columbia responded, saying they would work to address the government’s concerns about anti-Semitism, and it is now their “number one priority.” They are now “on track” to receive federal funding again.

On March 31, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that the Trump administration is now investigating Harvard University, saying, “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.”

Likely not wanting to face the freezing of federal funds that Columbia did, Harvard quickly responded, saying, “We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism.”

Also on March 31, the Trump administration paused $210 million in federal funding to Princeton University while it investigates potential anti-Semitism there.

We may soon learn of additional colleges whose funds are being withheld, since in early March the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights warned 60 colleges and universities are being investigated for potential anti-Semitic discrimination.

Following the White House’s lead, Congress is also taking action to stop anti-American foreign influence on college campuses. The House approved the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (“DETERRENT”) Act last week with bipartisan support (241-169). If passed into law, it will limit the amount of money foreign countries can give and prohibit certain countries from giving any money to American universities.

Over the last four years, the Biden administration allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flow into our country, many of whom hate Jews, America, and American values. They allowed crime and violence to run rampant throughout the country. Thankfully, we now have a strong, focused president and Republican majority in Congress that are taking their constitutional roles seriously and working hard to make American safe again.

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

RELATED ARTICLE: Marine Le Pen, J.D. Vance, and the European Deep State

RELATED VIDEO: More than 100,000 French patriots just conquered Paris in support of Marine Le Pen

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


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

Arizona State Arrests 69 at Encampment thumbnail

Arizona State Arrests 69 at Encampment

By Canary Mission

University Under Federal Investigation for Antisemitism

Following the lead of students at Columbia University who made the first pro-Hamas encampment on a U.S. campus on April 17, 2024, dozens of protesters at Arizona State University (ASU) descended upon ASU’s Alumni Lawn on April 26, 2024, at 8:45 a.m.

The protest was organized by Students Against Apartheid, which calls itself “a coalition of ASU students, clubs, and community orgs coming together to end ASU’s investment in the settler colonial state known as ‘Israel.’”

Armed with long-term supplies and tents, protesters quickly established a Hamas solidarity camp, which they dubbed the “ASU Liberated Zone.”

The encampment illegally occupied the newly renovated Alumni Lawn, the public-facing entrance to the university.

Officials immediately released a statement saying the encampment was unauthorized and violated the university policy and the Student Code of Conduct.

In addition, an ASU representative made clear that tents are not allowed anywhere on campus.

Unlike other universities where protests wreaked unending havoc on campuses for weeks, the administration responded swiftly.

The administration offered no path to negotiation or accommodation to the protesters who were violating university rules. The ASU police department was called in and by 9 a.m., officers were already tearing down tents.

Despite protesters linking arms to protect the encampment, the area was completely cleared. Three arrests were made after officers informed protesters they were in violation of misdemeanor trespass statute ARS 13-1502, which states it is illegal to remain on “property after a reasonable request to leave” by law enforcement.

Protesters quickly began rebuilding the encampment. They established a perimeter and proceeded to make demands, including:

  • A ceasefire in Gaza
  • ASU President Michael Crow’s resignation
  • Divestment by the university from “all companies tied to the state of Israel or complicit in the occupation of Palestine”

The university gave the protesters an 11 p.m. deadline to clear the encampment. By 6 pm, the crowd had swelled to 400 people.

Beginning at 10:40 p.m. and again at 11:47 p.m., police, who had been facing off with protesters, warned the protesters to disperse.

In addition to trespassing, the police informed the crowd that the encampment was also in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-2902, a class one misdemeanor that forbids unlawful assembly “with the intent to engage in conduct constituting a riot.”

Five minutes after the last warning and with no response from the crowd, the police moved in.

By 2 a.m. and with assistance from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, ASU PD had arrested 69 protesters, mainly from the front lines. The crowd, which had shrunk to about 200 people, began dispersing.

Clean-up crews behind the police cleared the encampment.

Pro-Israel students helped authorities clean up the encampment

Of those arrested, only 20 were students; the rest were outside agitators. Despite this fact, Lexsari Coronado, an ASU student affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation who is credited with organizing the protest, declared,

“This is just a student movement rising up and we are rising up with them. The movement is always student-led. The students are uprising, and this is changing the movement for Palestine. And yeah, we’re — we’re basically gonna stay here until our demands are met.”

Immediately after their arrests, the 20 students were suspended for violating the university’s anti-camping laws, banned from campus and prohibited from communicating with professors about coursework.

Three days later, on April 30, 2024, the 20 students filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Arizona Board of Regents.

Despite participating in a clearly demarcated illegal protest, the students charged that their First Amendment rights had been violated and sought a preliminary injunction to lift their suspensions.

The suit alleged that the consequences imposed upon them by ASU were causing them “irreparable harm” due to their inability to enroll in classes and meet academic requirements for graduation.

The district court judge denied the student’s motion to have their suspensions lifted and ruled that the students did not provide sufficient evidence that their First Amendment rights had been violated.

The judge also found insufficient evidence to support their claim that their suspensions were causing irreparable harm.

As of March 2025, the lawsuit is ongoing. The students amended their complaint, adding more defendants, and the sheriff asked for and received an extension to respond to the new complaint.

On Oct. 9, 2024, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell filed criminal trespassing charges, a Class Three misdemeanor, against 68 of those originally arrested. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, a $500 fine and a year of probation. To date, trial dates have not been set.

In filing the charges, Mitchell stated, “The right to free speech does not extend to violating the law.”

Federal Investigation into ASU Over Complaints of Antisemitism

In January 2024, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into ASU after receiving complaints of antisemitism at the university.

The complaints charge that Jewish students at ASU have felt “threatened and discriminated against” since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.

As reported by Campus Reform, whose Editor-in-Chief Dr. Zachary Marschall filed the complaints with the DOE, ASU’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) held an event on October 8, 2023, just one day after the massacre to help students “learn about the Palestinian liberation struggle against the U.S. and Israeli war machine.”

Five days after the massacre, on Oct. 12, 2023, ASU SJP held a “day of resistance” rally where students carried Palestinian flags and chanted “Free, Free Palestine” as well as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a call for Israel’s destruction.

The complaint asks for “sanctions against the University to the fullest extent [that the DOE] is able to impose them as well as forcing the University to ensure its funds are not sent to organizations spreading antisemitism.”

ASU is “one of several dozen universities accused by the Trump administration in March 2025 of allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to run rampant on campus,” reports Axios.

Arizona Advances Bill to Ban Encampments

Rep. Alma Hernandez, the Tucson Democrat who introduced the no encampment bill in the Arizona state legislature

State legislator Alma Hernandez, a Democrat from Tucson, is the principal author of a bill that would ban encampments on college and university campuses currently making its way through the Arizona state legislature.

Hernandez says the bill is a reaction to the wave of post-October 7 protests, which she charges were breeding grounds for antisemitism and illegal activity.

The Arizona House advanced the bill by a decisive margin on March 3, 2025. It now heads to the Senate.

In an interview with KJZZ Phoenix, Hernandez explained the need for the bill. “… both at the Arizona State University and University of Arizona, intimidating students because they are Jewish and trying to stop them from being able to walk… that’s problematic,” she said. “… No student should ever have to … find an alternate route to go to class. No student should have to be in a situation where they are harassed or pushed [which] did happen at Arizona State.”

Hernandez said that while she supports protesting and freedom of speech, those rights do not extend to criminal trespassing.

“What would people be saying if we had people out there who were literally calling for the death of black individuals on college campuses? I guarantee you people would have a problem with it … How is it any different? … Why are there double standards when it comes to Jewish community and Jewish students?” she asked.

RELATED VIDEO: U.S. veteran sounds the alarm on the infiltration of Islam into America’s education system

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

Weekend Read: Can We Fix Our Demographic Doom Loop? thumbnail

Weekend Read: Can We Fix Our Demographic Doom Loop?

By Edward Ring

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Falling birth rates in rich nations threaten collapse, while poorer regions boom—forcing tough questions on economics, culture, and why modern women choose not to have children.

Throughout the developed world, birth rates have crashed. But the “population bomb” that author Paul Ehrlich warned us about in the 1970s still exists; it’s just confined to the nations with the lowest per capita income. The correlation is almost perfect. The average number of children per woman in extremely poor nations is still extremely high.

For example,births per woman in Niger stand at a world-leading 6.6, which means that every generation the population of that nation will more than triple. Meanwhile, the per capita income in Niger, even based on purchasing power parity, stands at a dismal $2,084 per year. Exponential national population growth is occurring across most of the African continent, where in 1950, the population was estimated at around 225 million compared to an estimated 1.5 billion today. By 2050, Africa’s population is estimated to rise to 2.5 billion and is not estimated to level off until 2100 at nearly 4 billion people.

ADVERTISEMENT

There are pockets of fecundity elsewhere in the world, primarily in the Middle East, but if you exclude Africa and some Islamic nations, the entire global population is on a path to oblivion. From China (1.2 children per woman), Korea (0.9), and Japan (1.3) to Germany (1.5), Italy (1.3), and the United Kingdom (1.6), populations are on track to descend by 50 percent in at most two generations. The European numbers are only slightly better than the Asian numbers because of immigration.

Because of the sensitive nature of the information, it is difficult to get reliable statistics on the birth rates of indigenous European women. But according to official data from the German government, nearly 50 percent of all children under the age of five in Germany have a “migration background.” Since 80 percent of Germany’s population is still reported as having “German origin,” it is clear that immigrant birthrates are far higher than the birthrates of indigenous German women.

This pattern repeats itself throughout the European nations and nations of European origin. According to the Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom, the most common name for baby boys is now Muhammad. In the hopefully more assimilative United States, according to Pew Research, “minority” births now outnumber white births.

ADVERTISEMENT

What these demographic trends portend for our future is central to every major issue we face. Can we maintain economic health if we accept a population in terminal decline? So far, the Asians are betting they can, relying on automation and AI to fill the labor gaps. Can we maintain cultural stability if we import Africans and Moslems to have babies since we don’t want to anymore? That’s the bet the European nations are making.

But there is an even more fundamental question that ought to be the topic of massive public debate, without stigmatizing the participants or restricting the theories offered up. Why don’t women in developed nations want to have babies anymore?

Answers to this question typically travel into safe spaces. It’s economics: the cost of living is too high. Or the slightly conspiratorial but increasingly mainstream explanation that endocrine disruptors in our food and water have lowered the fertility and the libido of men and women alike. And, of course, the likely possibility that social media has spawned a younger generation that is isolated, socially stunted, and intimacy challenged.

ADVERTISEMENT

To some degree or another, all of these explanations are true, but they ignore countervailing facts: Our nations are now filled with subcultures for whom none of these reasons apply to nearly the same effect. What are they doing that we stopped doing? And here is where we dive into the topics and theories that one may risk career and political suicide to utter.

There is a pundit on X who goes by the name “hoe_math” and bills himself as “history’s manliest and most hilarious sex genius.” He recently released a brief video post on his X account that squeezes several inflammatory explanations for low female fertility into 2 minutes and 14 seconds. Something this succinct deserves analysis, despite being horrifically biased, sexist, etc., etc., etc., because even if he is overstating his case and ignoring other factors and being deliberately offensive, he is covering the forbidden bases that need to be covered. If there were more honest scholarship available on these topics, we might by now have a more sanitized and more credible compilation. But we don’t. So here goes.

The video opens with a clip of a woman who claims women don’t need men anymore. To which “hoe_math” goes to work. He begins by saying that women’s need for men is not gone, just more indirect now, stating that “men have always been between women and the real world.”

Relying on hand-drawn pictographs, he shows seven women in pink dresses, safe inside a circle that is shielded by men who are getting killed (denoted by being crossed out with red X marks), protecting them from danger. “Your office job is not the real world,” he continues. “Men face danger and build things in order to create a safe space for women. You just don’t understand that because you’re too comfortable . . . If all men stopped working right now, we would all die. That’s because men make all the food and build all the houses and the walls.”

If the first half of the video asserts that that base reality still exists, requiring the presence of men, the second half explores the consequences of denying that assertion. Speaking about women, he says, “And then you look around and go, ‘Hey, men have more than us. No fair,’ so you go to the government, which writes some laws for you that make you equal, and then you are disgusted by men who are equal to you.” He then ventures his primary argument, saying, “So without equality laws, it’s very easy for women to find men they respect, and with equality laws, it’s very difficult.”

Moving from the impact of financially empowering women to the impact it has on men, he states, “And then everyone tells these men they are worthless,” while in the video placing a “not people” card over the first seven levels of men on a pictograph that has columns of men and women ranked from 10 down to 1. He then says the men who are deemed worthless decide not to work anymore and instead turn themselves into a Peter Pan type character that rejects personal responsibilities and refuses to grow up.

Whatever else you may say about this video, and despite its glib oversimplifications, it has too much substance to be dismissed. A study conducted in 2006 by academics from MIT and the University of Chicago evaluated the role of height and annual income in determining male attractiveness to women. It found that for a man 5′ 6″ in height to be as attractive as a man 6′ tall, the shorter man would have to earn $175,000 per year more than the six-footer. For a 5′ 8″ man, the gap he would have to fill drops to $138,000 per year. A man only 5′ 2″ tall would have to earn a whopping $269,000 per year more than the six-foot man to be considered equally attractive to women.

Income matters. A 2022 study of dating site behavior found that “Men with combined income and education that was one standard deviation greater than the mean received 255%—over three times—more indicators of interest than men with combined income and education that was one standard deviation less than the mean.” A 2018 study published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior found that women consistently rated men with greater income as more attractive and that these findings “tally with a much broader corpus of scientific work which found high-status men were considered more attractive by women.”

If women aren’t attracted to men who make less money, that would help explain why they aren’t marrying these men and having children. But also relevant to the decline in births are two myths that are slowly disintegrating despite ongoing mainstream denial. The first is the familiar trope that women only make 83 cents for every one dollar earned by men. Not true. When normalizing for job type, qualifications, and hours worked, the “gender pay gap” all but disappears, thus diminishing the pool of eligible males.

The second myth is that women are more likely to find fulfillment in careers than in having children. Also not true. A study of American women aged 18-55 found that married women with children were twice as likely to be “very happy” as unmarried women with no children and only half as likely to be “not too happy.” As long as this myth persists, however, women are impelled to choose career over children.

These findings all come with uncomfortable implications. Are women choosing to be alone because they have an innate need to only be with a man who is more able to provide for them than they can provide for themselves, and there are no longer enough of those men to go around? Are the only cultures where women still have babies above a replacement level those cultures that discourage women from having education and careers?

The cost of living, toxins in the environment, and the isolating impact of technology are all playing a role in the catastrophic decline in birth rates in developed nations. But there are also profound and very recent changes in how we collectively choose mates and choose to have families that are probably playing the larger role. If we ignore these cultural factors, we risk losing everything. The heritage we have painstakingly built over millennia may be erased because we didn’t want to talk about it. Babies don’t yet come in bottles. Women either get pregnant and give birth to them, or we go extinct.

For decades, fear of being called racist has suppressed honest debate over mass immigration. Similarly, fear of being called sexist prevents honest debate over why there is a population crash and what to do about it.

*****

This article was first published on American Greatness, and is reproduced here with permission

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Do Our Schools Have a Prayer? thumbnail

Do Our Schools Have a Prayer?

By Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.

There’s a battle right now related to religion and Oklahoma schools. Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters is in favor of greater religious expression in the public schools of that state. Others in the “The Sooner State,” including the state attorney general and some confused clergy, oppose what Walters is attempting to do.

Walters wants school children to have access to the Bible and the Ten Commandments in school.

Walters said in reference to Engel v. Vitale, the 1962 Supreme Court decision that threw out school prayer as unconstitutional: “I think they were dead wrong on that. Individuals have the right to express their religious beliefs. That does not stop in a school building,”

Walter also said, “What I’m trying to make sure is our kids understand American history.”

The opposition is claiming that, in effect, Walters wants to “establish religion” in the schools.

But what does our history show?

The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Historically, this was understood to mean that there would be no established church at the federal level in the United States.

Even at the time the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791, prohibiting a federal church, a handful of states had their own established churches at the state level, and saw no conflict between that and the First Amendment. The last of these to wither away was that of Massachusetts in 1833.

Meanwhile, one of the great legal scholars at Harvard in the 1800s was Joseph Story, who went on to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court. In 1851, Story wrote a commentary on the Constitution.

Story wrote: “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [the First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.”

He added, “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Justice Story continued, “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism [Islam] or Judaism or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

In other words, according to a great legal scholar writing fairly close to the founding era, the purpose of the First Amendment was not to banish God from the public arena.

Jumping ahead to the twentieth century, another associate justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, who would go on later to serve as the Chief Justice, wrote this about the founders and the First Amendment:

“The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history…The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a ‘national’ one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.”

Rehnquist gave an example from the very same men who wrote the First Amendment: “George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of ‘public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.’ History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Thankfully, since Rehnquist wrote those words in 1985 in the case of Wallace v. Jaffre, there have been more “originalists” ruling on the high court—adding needed balance to the treatment of Christian expression in the public arena. Nonetheless, the battle for religious liberty is far from over.

As to the current battle, NBC observes: “Whatever happens in the Oklahoma case, more religious rights cases touching upon the establishment clause are on the horizon. Litigation is already underway over a law in Louisiana that would require public schools to display the Ten Commandments. A federal judge blocked the measure.”

Thomas Jefferson is often invoked as effectively the “patron saint” of secularism in the public arena. But even that is a misreading of history. For example, Jefferson wrote, “In the holy cause of freedom…heaven has rewarded us.” And he added, “that it may flow through all times…is my fervent prayer to heaven.”

The founders of America never intended to banish God from the public arena, including the public schools.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Trump admin freezes $210M to Princeton over anti-Semitism after Title VI complaint from Campus Reform’s Zachary Marschall thumbnail

Trump admin freezes $210M to Princeton over anti-Semitism after Title VI complaint from Campus Reform’s Zachary Marschall

By Campus Reform Campus Wire

Marschall’s complaint, filed in January 2024, claimed that the school took no serious steps to combat anti-Semitism after the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Jewish civilians.

A Trump administration official said that ‘Princeton has perpetuated racist and anti-semitic policies.’


WATCH: Princeton Loses $210M Over Antisemitism

President Donald Trump’s administration has suspended $210 million in funds to Princeton University in New Jersey after Campus Reform Editor-in-Chief Dr. Zachary Marschall filed a civil rights complaint against the school over anti-Semitism.

Marschall’s complaint, filed in January 2024, claimed that the school took no serious steps to combat anti-Semitism after the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Jewish civilians. He stated, for example, that students protested against the Jewish state only weeks after the massacre, chanting messages like “Brick by brick, wall by wall, apartheid has got to fall,” and calling for an “Intifada.”

“The violent words of these protesters completely disregard the atrocities Hamas has already committed and promises to commit in the future against the people of Israel, including raping, murdering, and kidnapping civilians,” Marschall wrote at the time.

Marschall’s complaint led the Department of Education—then under former President Joe Biden—to start investigating the Ivy League university in April 2024. The investigation was one of 16 that were started as a result of Marschall’s Title VI complaints, with other colleges such as Brown University and Tufts University also finding themselves under federal scrutiny.

A reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation announced the $210 million funding freeze on Monday, stating that it resulted from the investigation that started under Biden’s Department of Education, which is now continuing under President Trump.

A Trump administration official told the Daily Caller: “Princeton has perpetuated racist and anti-semitic policies.”

On Tuesday, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber sent a message to the community announcing that the school “received notifications from government agencies including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Defense Department suspending several dozen Princeton research grants.”

“Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism. Princeton will also vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of this University,” he continued.

The $210 million makes up almost 50 percent of federal funds that the Ivy League school receives, The Daily Princetonian reported.

On March 19, Princeton leaders called for “holistic spending restraint” due to negative attention from the White House—among other reasons—and announced that Princeton will cut down on hiring and raises, as well as potentially eliminate funding for certain projects, the Princetonian wrote.

Campus Reform has reached out to Princeton University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

AUTHOR

Elad Vaida

Managing Editor. Elad is a dual American-Israeli citizen of Romanian origin who moved to the U.S. in 2005. He graduated from Harvard University with a master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies and from Penn State University with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. He previously worked as a speechwriter for Senator John Kennedy (R-LA). His written work has appeared in The Federalist, Washington Examiner, The American Conservative, and other publications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Princeton engineering dean states Oct. 7 massacre helped trigger ‘backlash’ to DEI

Are Pro-Palestine Protesters Also Anti-American?

How are Ivy League schools using $6B in federal funding?

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

How American College Campuses Became the Islamo-Leftists’ Playground thumbnail

How American College Campuses Became the Islamo-Leftists’ Playground

By Jamie Glazov

The long game of indoctrination and radicalization. 

What do a Yale scholara Columbia studenta Georgetown researcher60 colleges and universities under investigation for relentless antisemitic eruptions, and Hamas – have in common?

In traditional times, the answer should be absolutely nothing. Institutions like Yale, Harvard, UPenn, Georgetown, and Columbia were once guardians of liberal democratic values, committed to fighting hatred and violence. Yet, today, this is far from the case.

A dangerous alliance has formed between the progressive movement in the United States and radical Muslim groups, using the guise of victimhood to create an anti-American coalition. Though antisemitic and anti-Israel at its core, the ultimate goal of this Red-Green coalition is far broader: the systematic destruction of America from within.

To accomplish its goal the movement has exploited American institutions, using democracy itself as a tool to undermine the very values that have made the United States the world’s most successful democracy.

The Long Game: Indoctrination and Radicalization

For years, the Islamo-Leftist alliance has been laying the groundwork to infiltrate academia. Starting with faculty and staff before trickling down to students. With foreign funding funneled into higher education institutions, this campaign of radicalization has steadily gained ground. The results became undeniable after the Hamas – October 7 barbaric attack on Israel, when the alliance mobilized in force, targeting America and its closest ally, Israel.

Over the past several years, the Red-Green network of terror sympathizers have systematically radicalized young minds, fostering a generation that views America as an illegitimate entity. They push for open borders, the abolition of law and order, and the delegitimization of democratic governance – all under the banner of “justice” and “liberation.” But their goals are clear: to dismantle the very foundations of American society.

The consequences are visible. Radicalized student mobs have stormed administrative offices, taken over campus buildings, and issued violent threats against those who dare to dissent. Freedom of speech has been suffocated, unless it aligns with the Islamo-Leftist narrative.

The Terror Connection: The Threat Within

We now have evidence linking these radical campus activists to terror groups openly calling for the destruction of America.

Consider Helyeh Doutaghi, an Iranian academic recently suspended from Yale for her involvement with Samidoun, a U.S.-designated terrorist entity. Doutaghi has openly called for a fight against America and the overthrow of its so-called “dictatorship.”

Then there’s Khalil Mahmood and Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a student-led initiative that seeks to dismantle both Israel and the United States. CUAD views America as an imperialist power, referring to their own activism as a fight from “within the belly of the beast.” Mahmood and CUAD activists have led aggressive protests, disrupted campus events, and pressured universities to cut ties with pro-American institutions.

Now, Mahmood’s legal case has become a rallying cry for leftist activists, who misleadingly frame it as a free speech issue while conveniently ignoring his open hostility toward the United States. His support among the progressive left underscores the extent to which the Islamo-Leftist alliance has gained influence, shaping the next generation of political extremists.

The Collapse of the Progressive Movement

The progressive movement has long harbored radical elements, but for many years, they remained on the fringes. Today, however, the radicals are no longer on the fringe, they are setting the agenda.

Leading progressive organizations now openly embrace slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” and “Bring Down the Empire.” Many young students chant these phrases without understanding their true meaning, believing they are fighting for “justice.” Yet these are not metaphors. The Red-Green radicals themselves admit they are direct calls for violence against American citizens.

At its core, the movement’s anti-American rhetoric represents a direct attack on the principles that define this nation. The United States was founded on liberty, democracy, and the rule of law, principles that have made it the freest and most prosperous country in history. But the Islamo-Leftist alliance sees these values as obstacles to its agenda. It embraces socialism, authoritarianism, and the suppression of free speech through intimidation and mob violence.

By radicalizing young Americans through university protests and social media propaganda, this movement is fueling a domestic insurgency designed to destabilize the nation from within.

The Global Threat: The Islamo-Leftist Alliance and Foreign Adversaries

This movement is not just a campus issue. It is a national security threat. It aligns itself with America’s foreign adversaries, openly supporting authoritarian regimes like China, Iran, Qatar, and Venezuela while demonizing U.S. foreign policy.

Radical activists in the U.S. describe American military efforts against Hezbollah and the Houthis, both designated as terrorist organizations, as “American terrorism.” Their hostility toward national sovereignty is evident in their push for open borders, knowing full well that a country without borders ceases to be a country at all. This is not about humanitarianism; it is about eroding America’s strength, identity, and ability to defend itself.

The Fight for America’s Future

The radicalization of American academia is no longer a fringe issue. It is a clear and present danger to national security. What we see on college campuses is a symptom of a larger problem: an organized effort to undermine America from within.

Universities, media outlets, and political institutions must stop legitimizing these extremist groups in the name of free speech. Law enforcement must take decisive action against those inciting violence. And American citizens must recognize that this fight is not about Jews or Israel – it is about the future of the United States itself.

By exposing and holding these extremists accountable, we can ensure that America remains a beacon of democracy and freedom. It is time for Americans to unite in defense of our country, reaffirm our commitment to its founding ideals, and resist the forces seeking to divide and destroy us. The future of the nation depends on it.

This article was originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

AUTHOR

Adam Milstein is an Israeli-American “Venture Philanthropist.” He can be reached at adam@milsteinff.org, on Twitter @AdamMilstein, and on Facebook www.facebook.com/AdamMilsteinCP.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-Palestinian Activists Largely Silent After Hamas Reportedly Tortures, Kills Protester In Gaza

World’s Wealthiest University Waves White Flag To Trump

Texas: Governor orders investigation of Islamic center planning Muslim compound

Shot Heard Round the Web: Booker T. Washington on Lifting Our Nation Up thumbnail

Shot Heard Round the Web: Booker T. Washington on Lifting Our Nation Up

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

America became the greatest country in the world by being a nation of individualists who would let no obstacle hinder them from accomplishing their goals. We must become that nation again if we are to restore our economy, culture, and political system.

We have witnessed numerous instances of elites’ unwarranted arrogance in recent weeks. There’s the shameless vulgarity of Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), who despite her ignorant incompetence previously sneered that we need illegal aliens to do menial jobs so elites like her can live the high life and grow wealthy off our money without earning it. There’s the raging hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Rep. AlexandriaTax the Rich” Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who grew rich and influential off being corrupt and power-hungry politicians, and yet are conducting a “fighting oligarchy tour. There’s Judge Boasberg and his fellow activist judges, who insanely and illicitly demand the ability to overrule all three branches of government and run the world’s most powerful nation (and for some mystifying reason, the Trump administration is meekly acquiescing). All these politicians and judges and their Marxist ilk could use a dose of reality from the late, great Booker T. Washington.

“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed,” Washington observed. “Character, not circumstances, makes the man.” And again, “If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.” Booker T. Washington learned these truths the hard way. Born a slave, he was freed by Union victory and the 13th Amendment while still young, but continued to face aggressive and even abusive racism and stark poverty in his youth. Finally, he became an internationally respected orator and educator, the founder and head of the prestigious Tuskegee Institute, which operated on the brilliant educational model of requiring both a classical education and training in different trades and manual labor. Magnanimous, forgiving, generous, and humble to the point of holiness, Booker T. Washington was truly a model of the best of the American spirit, and the most admirable sort of success.

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, he was therefore very much an individualist. Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the early 19th century that American individualism meant that each man and woman felt a strong sense of responsibility towards his community. Contrary to what Communists and oligarchs will tell you, individualism is actually very beneficial to society as a whole. Booker T. Washington is the perfect example. On the one hand, he worked very hard to become educated and to achieve personal success, both in his career and in his family life. On the other hand, he also made it his business to provide young people with an excellent education, and to encourage citizens across America to support his work and his vision.

“Among a large class, there seemed to be a dependence upon the government for every conceivable thing. The members of this class had little ambition to create a position for themselves, but wanted the federal officials to create one for them. How many times I wished then and have often wished since, that by some power of magic, I might remove the great bulk of these people into the country districts and plant them upon the soil,” Washington exclaimed. And again, he wisely noted of contemporary propagandists, “Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” What a perfect description that is of Jasmine Crockett, AOC, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and numerous other Democrats. Leftists in America, both in government and media, have made grievance and victimhood into the foundation of their own rise to power, and if all Americans were to see through their lies, they would be out of jobs.

Next week, we will also mark the anniversary of traitor General Lee surrendering to the great Union Lt. Gen. U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House. While it was not the end of the war — another Confederate army had yet to surrender at Bennett Place — it made overall Confederate defeat inevitable. But many Americans don’t know that the Confederates were Democrats who originally launched the Civil War because of the election of anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln. And even those Confederates who professed personal dislike of slavery, like Robert E. Lee, were by the end of the Civil War actively involved in murdering or enslaving every black civilian and soldier they could find, in compliance with Jeff Davis’s Retaliatory Act (read more about Confederate war crimes here). Why is this relevant to my original point? Because the Democrats have never really gotten over losing their slaves. They still fancy themselves as superior aristocrats who own their fellow human beings. And since they cannot shackle and sell us anymore, they try to control our minds. They want us not to be free-thinking, free-acting individuals, but rather mere members of a herd that repeats and does whatever it is told.

That is why it is so vital for us to reject altogether not only the Democrats’ propaganda but even their manipulative language, as for instance substituting “gay” for “homosexual” or “reproductive rights” for “baby killing.” Like Booker T. Washington rising from slavery to a height of political, moral, societal, and educational excellence, let us free our minds from the shackles of leftist ideology and vow to lift up both ourselves and others.

*****

Please visit Pro Deo et Libertate for more excellent content

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credit: Grok Image Generator

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!