PODCAST: Woke Culture Comes for America’s High Schools

High schools across America are embracing a woke curriculum. Charles Fain Lehman, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says he is troubled by a trend in education of embracing wokeness above reason and fact.
Lehman, who is also a staff writer at The Washington Free Beacon, joins the show to discuss his recent article “American High Schools Go Woke” and how this development may affect the nation years from now.
We also cover these stories:

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the length of a quarantine after exposure to the coronavirus may be shortened from 14 days to seven to 10 days.
  •  CDC Director Robert Redfield says America could see a massive spike in COVID-19 cases this winter.
  • Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asks the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal on Pennsylvania’s election results.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Virginia Allen: I am so pleased to welcome to the show Charles Fain Lehman, a journalist at The Washington Free Beacon and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Charles, thanks so much for coming on today.
Charles Fain Lehman: Thanks for having me on, Virginia. I feel glad to be here.
Allen: So today, we’re talking about a pretty popular subject, and that is woke culture. And that word, “woke,” is thrown around a lot. So I want to begin by just asking you to define exactly what we mean when we use that word, woke.
>You wrote a great piece on this that we’re going to get into in just a minute, but I think it would be really helpful to start with just, what exactly do we mean by that? What does that term, woke, mean?
Lehman: Yeah, absolutely, and I think as a term, it contains contradictions or contains multitudes, as it were.
There’s an author, Wesley Yang, who I think the term is generally attributed to, but refers to what he calls the successor ideology, the ideology that comes after late 20th-century Clinton-ite, triumphalist liberalism.
And it’s really more of an inchoate thing, but it’s the set of increasingly dominant liberal-progressive ideas that really took off in the wake of Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012 when we see a lot of this churning up.
So it imports a lot of academic ideas from the 1990s and earlier, has a great deal of focus on race or critical race theory; on sex, gender, and trans issues broadly; and I think is characterized by this particular social justice outlook on how the world works. A fixation on identity categories and defining things in those terms and then defining the world as a set of struggles between those identity categories.
And also, in some senses by the degree of its interest in ideological purity, in getting people to commit themselves fully to the ideology and spurning the nonbelievers, even within their own circles.
I think most viewers, most listeners will recognize this as that increasingly dominant strain in the American left more broadly, especially the college-educated or elite left.
Allen: And you have done quite a bit of reporting on this subject. You’ve just wrote a piece called “American High Schools Go Woke.”
And in the area of education, for several years, we have seen this increase in woke curriculum being promoted, being endorsed. But after the death of George Floyd and then across the summer with protests and riots, it felt like a lot of that very, very progressive education was fast-tracked in schools.
So can you just give us an update, what exactly are we seeing now? What’s actually happening in high schools across America?
Lehman: Yeah, absolutely, and I think the first thing that I would do is I would encourage your viewers to type in the name of their local school district or type in the name of their local private school into Google with the word “anti-racism.”
And they will find almost invariably that there’s a set of resources, or [a] page, or a letter discussing the school’s commitment to the importance of anti-racism, whereby anti-racism what’s really meant is a set of particular active commitments meant to combat racism that’s distinguished from being not racist, as being a set of beliefs that are … about correcting racial injustices actively.
I think across the country, there are both private and public schools that have pushed huge quantitative of time, money, and energy into so-called anti-racist agendas since the summer, essentially.
So, for example, in my article, I looked at, on the one coast, there’s Harvard-Westlake, which is by some measures the No. 1 prep school in the United States, and they released a 20-page letter over the summer from their administrators saying, “Here’s all of the ways in which we are racist, and here are all of the steps that we’re taking to combat racism.”
For example, their 11th-grade U.S. history course is going to be overhauled to be taught from a critical race theory perspective, which means it will incorporate the latest in progressive pedagogy.
On the other coast, we at the Free Beacon have looked at Fairfax County, which is one of the collar counties of D.C. in Virginia, where they spent something like $20,000 to get Ibram Kendi, who’s a prominent race scholar, to come talk to them. This is $20,000 of taxpayer money.
I dug up the details on the Anti-Racist Reading List that was sent out to parents and students at one Fairfax area school. So really, I mean, I have identified very few schools that haven’t been touched by this stuff in some way, and they’re pushing the same ideas everywhere.
Allen: Yeah. I mean, I love the examples that you give in the article because it’s wild when you actually see what’s happening, and what’s happening not that far away.
You tell about one Connecticut prep school in your article, Loomis Chaffee, and they have introduced mandatory diversity, equality, and inclusion training for students. And they’re also requiring faculty to read Kendi’s “Stamped From the Beginning” and [Robin] DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” for what they call professional development.
So you obviously see that there is a problem here, that this kind of mandatory woke education is harmful. Why do you see it as so harmful?
Lehman: I think there are a couple of answers to that, and you can talk about what sort of ideas it’s spreading. I think that there are derogatory features of it.
If you look at responses to DiAngelo’s book, if you look at some of the more extreme instances, frankly, the accounts of race that they give are startling and disturbing.
There’s a controversy because the National Museum of American History I think over the summer released an info sheet about the norms of white culture, which implied that non-White people aren’t on time to stuff and that that’s a white norm and non-white people don’t work hard so white people are willing to work hard.
No, I believe that everyone is able to work hard. That’s an important tenant of racial equality, is that we believe that people are equal in common decency and dignity.
But I think that the other thing to highlight is that a lot of this stuff doesn’t appear to work. It doesn’t appear to have a major impact.
I think everyone can reasonably agree that if we have tools that reduce racial animosity and tension, those are good. All else equal, we want that. But there’s a reasonably strong research finding at the corporate level that the corporate diversity trainings, their primary effect is not to reduce inequality in either experience or in hiring, but actually increase racial animosity and to have no effect otherwise on who ends up in top positions.
It seems like it mostly takes some extreme example of Robin DiAngelo, if you pay somebody $20,000 to spend two hours screaming at your employees about how all of their problems are caused by racial animosity, the effect of that will be to cause them to resent each other even more, which is not really surprising.
And then I think this plays out—I highlighted in the piece a couple of different stories about progressive schools that, really, their progressivism has veered into a disturbing level of anti-Semitism.
There was reporting from Tablet Magazine looking at [a] school in New York where they divided kids out by affinity groups that were based on their ethnic identity, and how all of the Jewish kids felt super targeted by being put into the Jewish group and being told that they were terrible Zionists and … the oppression of the Palestinians, that was their fault as Jews.
So that kind of division by race, especially among high schoolers, can promote bullying and destructive behavior.
Virginia Allen: Wow. No, I mean, I think on so many levels, just fundamentally the fact that, OK why are we continuing to do things that, one, we’re seeing really don’t help, and then, two, that actually have real harmful effects?
I do want to get your opinion on something that you reference in your article. That’s the 1619 Project. We’ve talked a lot about the 1619 Project on this show, the flaws with the curriculum, but we are seeing it continue to be implemented in schools across the country.
I want to get your perspective, as a journalist, and specifically how the media reports on the 1619 Project, because we know that there flaws. The New York Times themselves, they published a major correction to the project central piece.
So why do you think so much of mainstream media just looks the other way at something that’s being so promulgated but is so clearly flawed?
Lehman: I think I want to answer that question pretty generally and then focus in on the particular example, which is that there were lots of institutions in American society today, whether it’s the Pulitzer Prize, or The New York Times, or it’s who gets the Nobel Peace Prize, which has historical legitimacy, which it did.
Their authority derives from a past treatment of authority, and which today have been more or less co-opted by partisan liberal interests. They use the stamp of their legitimacy to approve things which are ideologically correct if they’re not factually correct.
And so this is how you end up in situations, and this is when you talk with journalists specifically, where journalists are happy to pat themselves on the back with things that are factually inaccurate or which don’t set an accurate picture, but which served the ideological ends that they want them to serve. You have a laundering of legitimacy that goes on.
So I think something like 1619, the question is not, is it right? Is it presenting an accurate picture? I don’t know a huge amount about the details, but for I think your reporting on it, the question is, is this how we imagined history really looks in this Howard Zinn sense of? Is this the untold secret story of history that confirms our ideological priors?
And if the answer’s yes, then they’re going to go, “OK, this is good. And we’re going to put our stamp of approval on it, and we’re going to help advance this thing having influence in society.” That tool set is apparent across American elite society, and it’s so apparent in that case too.
Virginia Allen: Interesting. I want to dive in a little bit more into some of these examples that you give in your piece about what is happening at some of these schools.
I was really fascinated, and then I did some extra homework on it, because I was really interested, that in San Diego, their public schools have actually overhauled their traditional grading system because of racism.
So they’ve changed the way that they grade as a way to combat racism. It’s a little unclear how one plus one, not sure. They didn’t seem to draw a super direct link for how changing the grading system then will help to defeat racism in that school district. Do you know more about that situation?
Lehman: Yeah. I mean, I think, basically, one of the enduring problems in American education policy over the past 40, 50 years is that there are large and persistent gaps along race on any standardized tests that you care to name, which is to say Asian students and then white students consistently and significantly outperform Latino students and then black students, and this is called the achievement gap.
And the why is a really complicated question and there are lots of different debates about how we can address this, and I think it’s important to ask, what are the underlying causes? That might be whether there [is] socioeconomic inequality, or lack of access to resources, or lack of school choice.
There any given number of factors at play, but having observed this disparity and from beating their heads against it for the past 50 years, I think many of the most progressive figures in education policy and in teaching theory have basically said, “It’s no longer relevant to ask, ‘What is the cause of this disparity?’ We should just choose the disparities, ipso facto, racists.”
This is the … logic, “If there is a disparity, then racism is what causes it. There’s no other plausible explanation. And therefore … we should address the disparity at the level of metric.” Which is to say, “If being graded poorly on homework is the thing that is leading to the achievement gap, the measure of achievement gap on homework between black kids and white kids, then the solution is to change how we grade homework until the achievement gap goes away.”
In other words, I think their contention is that the measures are hopelessly racist and so we should change the measures.
I think my contention might be, maybe not homework, but certainly standardized testing is a reasonably good measure of something like academic ability.
And so whatever the underlying causes of the disparities, again, with racists, you can argue inequality, whatever the underlying causes of the disparities are, changing the measure to make that measured disparity go away, changing what your measure is, doesn’t actually address the inequalities or issues that are causing the disparity to emerge in the first place. But I think that’s the thinking that’s going on there.
Virginia Allen: Yeah. That seems so dangerous and obviously so not helpful to those students that are struggling that need the extra help.
I mean, I’m just thinking, for a few years you’ll have teachers and administrators thinking, “Well, we ‘fixed’ the problem,” through a bizarre solution that isn’t a solution at all, a major problem that needs to be changed probably on multiple levels to really get these students up to par and get them the help that they need.
I do want to pivot and just ask you a little bit about something that you referred to, which is director of diversity. This has become a popular job title at a number of schools. Lots of schools, lots of businesses are hiring someone that’s specifically just on staff to make sure that that community is racially aware, that they are diverse enough.
So what exactly do these people do who wear this title of something like director of diversity?
Lehman: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s a person who is responsible for, the industry buzzword is DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion—and broadly speaking, it’s the person who is responsible for any initiatives related to those things as a set of priorities for a business, or a school, or a nonprofit, what have you.
And I think that can mean metrics for diversity, that can mean organizing a speaking event, that can mean consulting on who’s getting promoted and who isn’t. I think it’s a person who’s specifically responsible for forwarding a diversity, equity, and inclusion set of goals.
To some extent that might be good. It’s conceivable that they could do that role well. I think often in practice, that role, as I argue in the piece, often in practice what that role does is identify reasons that more diversity, equity, inclusion are needed.
So if you look at these schools, their roster of DEI people [has] only grown over the past five to 10 years. They might’ve started with one diversity chief, and then because of that person finding issues, they hire another person, and then another person, and then you have a seven-person group who’s responsible for diversity.
And it is telling to me that as these organizations add administrators, the number of acquisitions of racism only increase, the number of identified instances of racism only increase. Maybe they’re measuring better, but they may also typically be measuring more.
I think it is generally true that administrators of this sort seek in their own interest in trying to accrue, just like anybody, trying to accrue resources. And the best way to do that is to say, “Well, actually, you need even more DEI than you first thought.”
Allen: Wow, fascinating. And I know you have specifically written about that subject in other pieces, and we’ll link those in the show notes so our audience could read your work on that.
But I want to ask, apart from education, we are seeing that woke culture is really seeping into things like professional sports, of course, TV [shows] and movies, large corporations. So if we fast forward maybe 10 or 15 years, what [effect do you think] this very progressive woke culture ideology is going to have on America long term?
Lehman: I’ll say two things. One is, I’m not sure what’s going to happen in 10 to 15 years, in part because it is hard to disentangle this push for wokism and it’s contemporary political context.
Clearly, it started the second half of the Obama administration, but was empowered by the Trump administration, a liberal visceral backlash against the Trump administration. Maybe with Joe Biden in office, it’ll ratchet back. Maybe not. Who knows? Let’s imagine it doesn’t.
I think I would say, here’s the thing that’s not going to happen, I am not optimistic about the spread of woke ideology actually reducing substantive racial inequality in United States.
If our priority is doing something like reducing the black-white wealth gap, I don’t think it’s going to have a major impact on that. I don’t think Uber Eats-ing from a black-owned restaurant is going to have a major impact on that, even though they lecture me about it all the time.
I certainly don’t think you lecturing your employees about their white fragility is going to have a major impact on that. And I think in general, it is unlikely to even help diversity at the top end of the distribution. The Nasdaq can require you to have a more diverse board in order to be admitted to it, but I think companies will be really good at skirting that.
Instead, what I imagine is that mostly the serpent will leave its own tail, that as with diversity execs I talked about a minute ago, in schools, the principle applies more broadly.
What mostly will happen [is] they’ll find new ways to identify hard-to-measure racial problems, racial wrongthink, and then hire new consultants and new employees and new directors who are responsible for ferreting it out, none of which will have any interest in correcting any substantive imbalance from a policy perspective, but will instead so focus on reinforcing this idea and therefore, frankly, generating more profit for the people who propound it.
Allen: Charles, we just so appreciate your insight on this issue. I do want to ask, where can our listeners follow you, find your work?
Lehman: Absolutely. I think the best place is at the Free Beacon. That’s freebeacon.com. I’m there. All of my great colleagues are there. You can also follow me on Twitter. I’m @CharlesFLehman. … Those are both good places.
Allen: Great. Charles, thank you so much.
Lehman: Yeah. Thank you.

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.
RELATED ARTICLE: The Left’s Gender Theories Are Anti-Scientific Nonsense, but They’re Gaining Ground

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.
They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.
Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.


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

American History Down the Memory Hole?

Last week we celebrated Thanksgiving, but is this holiday becoming so politically incorrect that one day it will be doomed to be sent down the “memory hole”?
There is a war on American history. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, Antifa and other leftwing groups toppled more historical statues. Tyler O’Neil of PJ Media (11/28/20) describes the extent of this vandalism, which included the spray-painting of anti-Thanksgiving messages and statues torn down in Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, and Spokane.
Statues that were toppled or defaced included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and William McKinley.
It is interesting to note, during these anti-Thanksgiving melees, that George Washington was the first president to declare Thanksgiving as a holiday—a time for the nation to thank God for us having been able to create the Constitution. And Lincoln was the first president to make Thanksgiving an annual holiday.
This weekend’s vandalism, of course, comes a few months after the toppling of all sorts of American historical statues, including Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and even abolitionist Frederick Douglas. The war on America as founded continues unabated.
One of the emphases in last week’s new spate of American history-bashing seemed to focus on a grievance of some Native Americans. There was a push for what they called “a national decolonial day of action” and what they called “land back.”
O’Neil explains: “’Land back’ seemingly refers to The LANDBACK campaign, a Native American movement supposedly fighting ‘white supremacy.’ The campaign calls for the dismantling of the ‘white supremacy structures’ supposedly responsible for removing Native Americans from their lands.”
America has never been perfect. Injustices have been done. On the other hand, we have made great strides to address many of these past sins. Meanwhile, notes O’Neil, “the nefarious message of Marxist critical race theory suggests we should upend society in order to satisfy historical grievances in the name of racial justice. This toxic vision undermines the very real progress America has made in terms of establishing civil rights regardless of race and in terms of securing broad prosperity through a free market economy.”
Recently, I spoke with a Native American pastor to get his thoughts on the Pilgrims and American history for a television documentary. Rev. Billy Falling, author of My Cherokee Roots, does not agree with those who denigrate the founding of America for all the bad things that did indeed happen—later (long after the Pilgrims)—to Native Americans.
For example, Rev. Falling said of the Pilgrims, in whose honor we celebrate Thanksgiving: “The Pilgrims did have good relations with the Indians. The Pilgrims were kind to the Indians. They showed them love. They showed them compassion. They showed them the godly way to live.”
Falling added, “As a Native American, I thank God for the Europeans that brought us the Gospel and brought us Western Civilization.” He said that the Indians need the Gospel as much as any group of people: “We owe everything to those who brought us civilization and brought us out of the cannibalism and out of all of the sins of the flesh that were practiced in the day just like the heathen of the world. It’s hard today to find a ‘sweat’ where you can go as a Native American and go inside and ‘smoke out your sins,’ but it’s easy to find Native Americans in any congregation in the United States, worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ because of the Europeans.  And I thank God for that.”
The war on American history does not bode well for our future. Tens of millions of young Americans are brainwashed into thinking America is evil and always was evil.
In his nightmare vision of a totalitarian future, “1984,” novelist George Orwell speaks of history constantly being rewritten by the state in order to satisfy those in charge. That history which was no longer acceptable to the Party was sent down the “memory holes” where it was to be burned away in “the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.”
Orwell adds, “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
Golda Meir, former prime minister of Israel, once noted, “One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.”
Those of us who appreciate what God has done in the creation of America have a lot of work on our hands to try and convince a lot of young Americans who have been brainwashed by Marxist assaults on American history in our schools that our history, flawed as it is, is worth preserving. Abolish Thanksgiving? No thanks.

U of A Faculty & Staff Arrested: FBI agents and U.S. Marshals took them away in handcuffs for a scheme to defraud taxpayers of $435 billion.

TUCSON – As part of a nationwide federal sting operation named “Bring Social Justice”, deans and top administrators from the Tucson-based University of Arizona were arrested at their homes last night and taken away in handcuffs by FBI agents and U.S. Marshals for what could be the biggest fraud in U.S. history.

The operation also resulted in the arrest of thousands of faculty and staff from other colleges across the nation.

I’m kidding about the arrests but not about the fraud.

Unfortunately, it’s no laughing matter. The self-righteous preachers of social justice and diversity deserve to be arrested for the injustices they’ve inflicted on Americans in general and poor minorities in particular.

An indictment would be clear and indisputable. It would detail how colleges conspired with the federal government to encourage students to take out student loans, even if they did not have the K-12 grades and the personal commitment to ever graduate or if they picked a major that wouldn’t command a high enough salary to pay off the loan in a reasonable time.

The government had and continues to have such loose loan criteria that basically anyone can get a student loan, regardless of credit history, grades or chosen major. But colleges didn’t have to aid and abet such a recipe for financial disaster and could’ve blown the whistle loudly and incessantly on the fiscal insanity, instead of taking the money and covering up the truth about the loan program.

Shamefully, college faculty and staff went along with the scam out of self-interest. They got the benefits of the money in terms of better job security, opportunities and working conditions for themselves, but at no cost to themselves when the borrowers defaulted, as many were obviously going to do, especially so-called minorities.

Anecdote: My son has two engineering degrees from the University of Arizona, a bachelor’s and a master’s. Before the start of his freshman year, I attended an orientation with him for new students and their parents. The engineering dean asked for a show of hands of those students who had not taken the required math placement test before enrolling, to see if they had the math skills to major in engineering. About a third of the students raised their hands, and most of them were minorities. It didn’t take a crystal ball to know that their odds of staying in the discipline were not good.

The latest estimate shows that the government is going to lose $435 billion on the student loan program, which means that taxpayers will have to foot the bill, including working taxpayers who have never gone to college, taxpayers who worked their way through college without taking out a loan or those who took out a loan and repaid it.

Social injustice, for sure.

At the same time, the easy money made colleges even more inefficient, complacent, and spendthrift than normal. They built swank dormitories (er, residence halls), first-class exercise facilities, dining options that rivaled those on a cruise ship, resort-like grounds and huge and hugely expensive sports complexes for their football and basketball teams. As a result, prices for college tuition and fees were 1,413% higher in 2020 than in 1977 (an increase of $282,614.47), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now a move is afoot in Congress and the new administration to excuse all tuition debt and even make college free. There is already a loan forgiveness program for some targeted groups, and especially for those who take a public-sector job, which is an example of the government looking out for its own.

Anecdote: The notion of free college brings to mind a time years ago when I went to Iceland to conduct management training. Over dinner one evening, my host lamented that as a result of the tiny nation having free college, students tended not to rise before ten o-clock in the morning and took six years or more to get their degree.

Of course, history shows that nothing is more expensive than a free government program.

If there were social justice, free college would be a moot point in any event. That’s because colleges would be devoid of faculty and staff. They’d be serving time in prison for their role in the $435 billion college loan scam.

Arizona Prop 208 Passed: An Economic Rabbit Hole

Arizona voters have some serious ‘splaining to do about the passage of Proposition 208, which raised education funds by boosting income tax rates by up to 98% for high income filers. How could this have happened?

Arizona schools have already received over one billion dollars in new sustainable monies over recent years, with more coming. More importantly, Arizona public schools, without receiving much credit, have become a remarkable success story.

Academic achievement gains for minority students are among the highest in the nation. Arizona charter schools excel in competitive rankings.

But voters apparently weren’t focused on educational outcomes. Prop 208 was marketed as a way to get other people, “the rich”, to pay the freight. Even though it’s one of the oldest tricks in the tax-and-spend playbook, Arizonans fell for it while voters in 17 other states thought better.

California voters rejected the removal of a cap on commercial property taxes that would have been the largest tax increase in state history. Voters in Illinois, Washington and Colorado were among those who defeated reckless taxation proposals.

Many may not know that Arizona once was a high tax state, with a 7% top rate for individuals and a 9% top rate for corporations. It was considered regionally uncompetitive until the 1990s when income tax rates were cut 35% and deductions were expanded.

The result, according to data from the Arizona Tax Research Association, was 145% more income tax revenue, inflation adjusted, in 2017 than in 1991, a rate of growth that exceeded population growth by 60%. More importantly, Arizona’s real GDP increased 176% from 1987 to 2016, while the US GDP grew 100.4%. Clearly, Arizona’s relatively low income tax rates produced abundant tax revenues while attracting capital and capitalists.

No longer. The strategy of sound tax policy is to establish broad-based, fair taxes with the lowest possible rate where they are the least likely to do economic harm. Prop 208 fails on all counts.

It’s singles out a small group and whacks them hard. Unfortunately, the sector being picked on includes many small business owners who pay their business taxes through the individual income tax system.

These just happen to be the entrepreneurs who drive much of the employment and economic growth in the state. A 100% tax rate increase for them will be enough to discourage further investment in Arizona businesses and to encourage those who can to file elsewhere. Arizona will rank in the top five nationally for income tax rates, a radical change sure to generate impacts which won’t be pretty.

The schools and teachers who have been promised salary increases aren’t so lucky either. Unfortunately for them, Prop 208 provides a highly volatile funding source, while teacher salaries require a stable, reliable revenue stream.

High wealth income taxes are notoriously subject to downturns in the business cycle. In 2008, following the great recession, tax collections from high income filers dropped 32% or $1 billion. School authorities who peg permanent salary increases to this income source are almost assuring a future crisis.

Although Republicans may have dodged a bullet, the election of 2020 continued the trend for Arizona voters to reverse their historical support for prudent, limited government. It’s not likely that Arizonans have change their mind. But who they are have changed.

Migrants from California and other failing states seem to have brought their old voting habits with them, oblivious to the reasons Arizona offers an attractive, affordable quality of life.

Here’s what the spenders can’t seem to grasp. Editorialists and interest groups will never run out of worthy spending projects that a more “enlightened” government would surely fund. But high tax rates, especially on those who don’t need it” is a giant rabbit hole.

Once you start down it, you’re sunk. Government benefits, once conferred, automatically become permanent entitlements which can never be reduced. Meanwhile, high tax rates seldom produce as much revenue as projected, due to tax avoidance behavior. Eventually, basic obligations like public safety and pension funding can’t be met. The answer is… higher taxes on the economically productive. They eventually get fed up and leave.

A growing number of state and local governments are facing economic desperation from this vicious cycle. Let’s hope Arizona isn’t among them.


Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.

Cost of Lockdowns: A Preliminary Report

In the debate over coronavirus policy, there has been far too little focus on the costs of lockdowns. It’s very common for the proponents of these interventions to write articles and large studies without even mentioning the downsides.

Here is a brief look at the cost of stringencies in the United States, and around the world, including stay-at-home orders, closings of business and schools, restrictions on gatherings, shutting of arts and sports, restrictions on medical services, and interventions in the freedom of movement.

Continue reading at: https:/www.aier.org/article/cost-of-lockdowns-a-preliminary-report


This column from American Institute for Economic Research was published on 11/18/20 and is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of The Prickly Pear or of our sponsors.

Founded in 1933, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is one of the oldest and most respected nonpartisan economic research and advocacy organizations in the country. With a global reach and influence, AIER is dedicated to developing and promoting the ideas of pure freedom and private governance by combining advanced economic research with accessible media outreach and educational programming to cultivate a better, broader understanding of the fundamental principles that enable peace and prosperity around the world.


The Founders Outsmarted the Presidential Election Fraudsters

Who chooses the President of the United States?

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else.

In general, the federal government’s structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government.  The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized “from the bottom up,” that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire.  All other “republics” on the planet were created “from the top down,” when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government.

In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure.  Therefore, from the Founding Fathers’ point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators.  This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented.  The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country.

Continue reading at American Thinker

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum.

Public School Enrollment Plummets as Private Schools See Gains

Ongoing and renewed shutdowns of public schools across the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in astonishing public school enrollment drops.
NPR recently reported that public school districts in at least 20 states have seen shrinking numbers of students this fall, with Orange County and Miami-Dade County in Florida down 8,000 and 16,000 public school students, respectively. Los Angeles public school enrollment has dropped by nearly 11,000 students.
Families are increasingly turning away from public schooling and toward private education options during the pandemic—a trend that is likely to continue even after the virus fades.
Since March, US parents have been put back in charge of their children’s education in unprecedented ways. Zoom schooling has given them a peek into what their children are actually learning (or not learning) in their classrooms, and ongoing school closures have encouraged families to pursue education options beyond their assigned district school. Many families have withdrawn their children from a district school in recent months in favor of independent homeschooling or private schooling, or have decided to delay their child’s kindergarten entry.

According to a recent Gallup poll, the rate of homeschooling has doubled since last year to nearly 10 percent, while the rate of children enrolled in a district school declined seven percent to 76 percent of the overall US K-12 student population.
New state-level data offers more insight into this exodus from public schooling. In Connecticut, officials report that public school enrollment is down more than 15,000 students or about three percent, with much of that drop due to fewer children enrolled in public kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs. At the same time, homeschooling numbers in Connecticut are more than six times higher than they were last year, with over 3,500 children opting out of public schooling for homeschooling this year alone.
Other states are seeing similar shifts away from public schooling this fall. In Utah, public school enrollment has dropped for the first time in 20 years, while homeschooling numbers in the state have tripled this year. In Arizona, public school enrollment is down 50,000 students, or about five percent of the school-age population, with an associated uptick in homeschooling. The state has also seen a 14 percent drop in kindergarten enrollment. In Montana, public school enrollment is down approximately 3,300 students over last year and homeschooling numbers are up. School officials there are worried about state funding cuts as public school enrollment falls.
Indeed, this is a prime moment to advocate for education choice policies, such as education savings accounts, that enable education funding to follow children wherever they learn, rather than funding the bureaucratic school systems that more families are rejecting. Critics argue that the flight from public schools toward private options during the pandemic deepens inequality, but expanding education choice mechanisms ensures that all parents have the opportunity to select the learning option that works best for their children.
The Reason Foundation’s Corey DeAngelis has written extensively about funding students, not systems. He explains: “This is exactly how we fund many other taxpayer-funded initiatives, including Pell Grants for higher education and prekindergarten programs. For these programs, funding goes to families who can then choose from a wide array of public or private providers of the service. The same goes for food stamps. In these scenarios, the power is rightly in the hands of families rather than institutions.”

It is clear that growing numbers of families are opting for private education options during the pandemic, and many more would likely leave their assigned district school now and in the future if they could access some of their education tax dollars that are currently ensnared in public school systems.
Some private schools are seeing enrollment jumps during the pandemic, even as public school numbers fall. According to a recent analysis by the Cato Institute, nearly one-quarter of private schools surveyed indicated that their enrollment has grown over last year. Catholic schools and independent private schools in some states have also seen enrollment boosts. These schools have been more responsive to parental demand for in-person learning while public schools remain closed, often due to teacher union pressure.
In Boston, interest in Catholic schools soared over the summer when Massachusetts teacher unions announced a push for remote learning only, while the state’s parochial schools committed to in-person learning. Thomas Carroll, the head of Boston’s Catholic schools, said the enrollment demand from parents was immediate. In an interview with Boston NPR, Carroll explained: “When it hit the evening news, our phone(s) started ringing off the hook all across all of our 100 schools…I joke that we should send a thank you note to the school districts, because of their tone deafness, in terms of what the parents were looking for.”
The reopening of in-person learning in these Catholic schools has not led to widespread coronavirus infections. Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, recently praised them as an example for public schools to follow. “The kids in schools are not spreaders of Covid,” the Wall Street Journal quoted Baker. “I mean, there’s no better example of that right now than the parochial schools in Massachusetts. They have 28,000 kids and 4,000 employees who have been back in-person learning since the middle of August, and they have a handful of cases.”

Parent demand for in-person learning during the pandemic is prompting an expansion of private education possibilities, including low-cost options that are more accessible to more families. Pandemic learning pods are widely popular, allowing small groups of children to gather together in private homes with a hired teacher, or with parents taking turns facilitating instruction. As these affordable, versatile pods take more children away from district schools, it’s perhaps not surprising that bureaucrats are declaring war on them with regulatory burdens. But parental demand for flexible, high-quality, low-cost learning options is unlikely to wane, particularly as parents gain a greater appreciation for private education during the pandemic.
Thales Academy, for example, is a North Carolina-based network of low-cost private schools that is expanding during the pandemic even as public school enrollment in the state plunges. Founded more than a decade ago by entrepreneur Bob Luddy who was frustrated with the bureaucracy and poor outcomes of North Carolina’s public schools, Thales Academy has grown to 11 campuses in three states, enrolling more than 3,600 students at an annual tuition cost of about $5,500 a year, plus generous scholarship programs to off-set the cost even further for many families.
The pandemic has disrupted families’ lives in countless ways, and the impact of school closures and remote learning has been particularly challenging. Many parents are embracing homeschooling and other private education options that are more flexible and responsive to their needs. With an assortment of innovative, low-cost, high-quality private education options attracting more families, plummeting public school enrollment during the pandemic may become permanent.

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.
RELATED ARTICLE: Should Blacks Support Destruction of Charter Schools?
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Educating the Next Generation About Communism

Resources for parents or homeschooling groups.

Two days before the election, then-Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris took to Twitter to share a video she narrated that critics say amounted to support for communism.

Harris’s video aimed to identify the difference between equity and equality. The video proposed that citizens should have access to the same resources and advantages in society. The video ended with Harris saying, “It’s about giving people the resources and support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”
The support for communism lies in the idea that where people end up should also be static across the board. Ensuring — or forcing — equal outcomes is a byproduct of communist thinking.
Today, a significant subsection of American political leaders are espousing ideas that are often labeled “cultural Marxism,” especially through the promotion of critical race theory.
November 7, the 103rd anniversary of Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, finds many parents having to confront the challenge of educating their children about the dangers of Marxism and socialism — either to counter the curriculum their children are being exposed to at school or because they have chosen to homeschool their children.
Interest in homeschooling has “exploded” during the COVID pandemic; state-wide statistics vary, but all consistently show a spike in the number of parents pulling their children out of school. (In a typical year, roughly 3 percent of students are homeschooled. That number is expected to jump to 10% this year according to the National Home Educators Research Institute. In Nebraska, for example, homeschooling is up by 21 percent; in Vermont it is up by 75 percent.)
Either way, the challenge posed to parents is daunting. Against a backdrop of extremism on the streets promoting communist and communist-leaning ideologies, parents must teach the historic devastation of this political idea that resulted in communist states killing as many as 100 million of their own people.
As part of our Preventing Violent Extremism program, Clarion Project is now educating about the current glamorization of communism and socialism with articles that cover and explore this topic.
In addition, Clarion is offering a free, 60-minute presentation on extremism in today’s context. The conversation maps what extremism looks like today and how to protect your children.
Click here to find out more about this presentation
We can recommend the following online resources for parents looking to educate their children on communism, including:

If you’re a homeschooling community, a pod or microschool, or simply a parent wanting to protect your child,  we look forward to seeing how we can bring this training to you and collaborate on resources to amplify our best educational solutions to the threat of extremism.

Click here to find out more about this presentation


Shireen Qudosi

Shireen Qudosi is Clarion Project’s National Correspondent.
RELATED ARTICLE: Communism Survivor Warns What Will Happen if Americans Take Freedom for Granted
EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Living in a Dream World. Time to wake up.

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.
As we stand here today, we still don’t know how things are going to play out in the White House race as well as in the U.S. Senate, but in the current circumstances, you’d rather be in Joe Biden’s shoes than the president’s.
Church Militant is working aggressively behind the scenes on all the issues surrounding these races and bringing you the latest (as well as most trustworthy) information and analysis available.
In the meantime, we need to deal with the reality we are in. Even if a few million votes have been included in the counts that are fraudulent — and that’s still a big if, that number — America still shifted toward embracing socialism.
Remember, it doesn’t take millions and millions of illegal or fraudulent votes to swing an election. It only takes 10,000 or so, here or there (more than that in a handful of big states like Pennsylvania), to swing an election.
But still, given that, even if you take away a couple million votes from the national count, a majority (nationally) of voters checked the box for Biden.
Currently, the numbers are:

  • Biden — 50.4% with 72,297,195 votes
  • Trump — 48% with 68,797,809 votes

You’d have to take away almost 4 million votes from Biden nationally to get to a tie.
Of course, national numbers are not distributed evenly across the country: Some places are decidedly more socialist-embracing than other places that are more American-oriented.
In fact, 13 pro-life Republican women won election to Nancy Pelosi’s Marxist-loving house — a good number of them ousting child-killing Marxists.
This is certainly something to be celebrated and good for those women, a small little red wave of women who will give Nancy or her replacement headaches next year, not to mention egg on her face.
But overall, the national embrace of socialism is certainly trending. What’s behind it? Well, a number of factors, but in this particular election, there is the big elephant in the room: Donald Trump.
According to every exit poll, a majority of voters who voted for Biden voted not for Joe, but against Trump. But why?
What is it that would create such animus for a president who had restored America’s economic might, bolstered U.S. influence around the world, been the first president to not have us involved in a foreign war in many administrations, created historically low unemployment levels across the board (especially for minority groups), delivered the largest tax cut in American history and overall raised the country to heights unseen for decades?
The answer all boils down to his personality and how he is portrayed. The American culture, greatly assisted by the U.S. hierarchy, has become massively emasculated — taught over the past decades to care more about feelings than the truth.
The educational institution was seized control of decades ago, as was the media, and in a combined effort, they embarked on a campaign to switch out the national intellect for a panoply of emotions.
Truth and justice were dropped along the wayside and replaced with emotions. Emotions have become the standard by which everything is measured, and in 2020 especially, Trump’s tone is what has motivated an avalanche of hatred against him.
It’s a classic example of “You can’t handle the truth” writ large. Trump speaks plainly. He speaks directly. But in a culture that has become terrified of truth, because of the consequences of the truth, that is anathema.
And this is where so-called conservatives need to be held up to be shamed. Too many “conservatives” have done next to nothing to prevent this tsunami of evil from engulfing the country.
Life for many conservatives — and in this group, we include Mass-going Catholics — is way too comfortable. They have grown accustomed to watching and wanting other people do something while they themselves just tweet, sign online petitions, belly-ache with friends and then think (having vented) they have actually done something.
The truth is, they have done and accomplished nothing. They sat by while their gay priests manipulated Church teaching, thinking it wouldn’t be cricket to scold him after Mass.
They would not go out, physically get up off their couches, and protest crooked bishops persecuting good and holy priests — priests who are saying the truth and trying to lead their parishioners to Heaven.
For the most part, they clutched their pearls during the scandalous McCarrick revelations, but then most moved on, pretty quickly forgetting all about it.
Too many Catholic men have swallowed the poison of toxic femininity, taking the easy way out whenever possible, betraying their innate masculine virtues of self-sacrifice on behalf of the defenseless and innocent.
The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960s has created a dual enemy of Western civilization: Toxic women and pathetic men. And if you need any proof of that, look no further than the Marxist party ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Biden is living proof of the degradation of the masculine in the past half-century — a man who has the blood of tens of millions of children on his hands (as opposed to defending them in accord with his natural traits).
And Kamala Harris is the perfect Marxist woman — a woman who sold her soul early in her career through adultery to gain power and ascend to where she is now. Where were the conservative men, Catholic and otherwise, in the political arena, as the scheming and conniving Marxists were engineering their coup?
Why, when republicans had control, did they not pursue an aggressive policy of purging voter rolls over the years or lining up honest citizens to watch and monitor polls in thousands of races where the Marxists kept inching closer to power?
In the Church, where were all the men challenging the hierarchy and its evil, despicable deeds? Even today, why is James Martin allowed to roam freely around the nation’s dioceses, only seldom meeting any resistance from men who, online, present themselves as faithful?
The point of all this is simple: What is playing out before us is the final act in a play begun long ago that was ignored by those who have the intelligence to understand what’s going on but are severely lacking in the will to actually do something about it.
And then, suddenly, when the reality of the consequences of their inaction hits them square in the face, they start issuing calls for prayers.
Why? Because we’ve reached the end — or at least appear to have. Why should our Heavenly Father answer the prayers of a people that did nothing — or next to nothing — for decades as they idly watched a culture falling apart or their Church being overrun Sunday by Sunday?
Why should He answer those prayers if there is no firm purpose of amending our ways? The Catholic Church has been allowed to sink into a sea of disgrace, and it’s because over a half-century ago, Catholic men were happy to make a bargain with the bishops.
They would ignore the evil in the hierarchy in exchange for silence on contraception. And that bargain is still in effect, with no end in sight. A huge majority of Catholics and their bishops have been happy to accept a world of gray, have refused or failed to see the world straight on as it is, in terms of black and white.
They live in a dream world. Donald Trump speaks in those terms, and that is what has upset so many people. The president is direct. At the end of the day, it’s not just the tone; it’s the message.
The entire universe is ordered in terms of black and white, including (most importantly) salvation. Anyone who lives outside of this truth is not likely to be saved. That’s why the evil that spews from the mouth of Bp. Barron is so poisonous: The garbage that “We have a reasonable hope that all men are saved” is pernicious.
But evil always shows its true face eventually, and Barron came out cheering for James Martin’s latest book on “spirituality.” Get real, bishop. Another example — among many — of a failed man rising to power in the Church.
Faithful Catholics, political conservatives cannot coexist with these Marxists in the Church and the culture. They must be exposed, battled against and defeated.
And when you look at big-name conservative cultural icons, be careful.  Even though they say something (even many things) that is spot on, they are only talking about the symptoms of the cultural rot.
As long as they fail to recognize that contraception and the worldview that supports it is what has brought us to this point, ultimately, they provide nothing but historical footnotes. They present the symptoms — sometimes very well — but they entirely miss the diagnosis. That scenario will never arrive at a cure, if a cure is even possible anymore, before it all ends fatally.
We are witnessing a euthanizing of Western civilization and can do nothing about it because the “hospital” was long ago taken over by killers while we were allowing ourselves to be put to sleep.
Whether the final call is a Trump come-from-behind victory or a Biden descent-into-even-more-evil, unless men, especially Catholic men, commit to reversing this in whatever circumstances present themselves, expect nothing to change.
Men, are you going to finally throw off the shackles of half a century of toxic femininity, or are you going to be content to watch the lights go out?
As a program note, Church Militant will be live at 6:30 p.m. ET Friday with a post-election update.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bloomberg and Rosenwald: Compare & Contrast

Michael Bloomberg, a Jewish billionaire who built his fortune on a computerized data base and computer terminal used by Wall Street firms, put in $100 million in Florida to try to swing the election for Democrats.

Numerous other billionaire tech moguls, are pumping millions of dollars into Black Lives Matter, a Marxist organization dividing America.

No doubt both think their actions will help black people.  Or perhaps they think they can buy off the mob by aiding those that want to destroy the free enterprise system that made these moguls wealthy. It is hard to know.

Contrast this tendency among today’s ultra-rich with the story of Julius Rosenwald.

In the 1870s through the 1890s, the revolution in retailing was the mail order business. Montgomery Ward became the Amazon of the era, servicing customers in the underserved rural market with low prices, variety and quality.

Around the turn of the 20th century, a new competitor was launched by two watch salesmen, Alvah Roebuck and Richard Sears.  The firm they founded expanded rapidly under the leadership of a Jewish clothing salesman, Julius Rosenwald.

The firm did very well but as demographics shifted from farm to city, Sears Roebuck kept its mail order business but also pivoted with a major emphasis on retail stores in urban areas.  The company did even better.

The firm sold just about anything, including kits for the construction of homes.  A good collection of these can be found still occupied in Bisbee, Arizona.

Rosenwald pumped his own money into the firm to support it during the Great Depression.

While running this very successful company, Rosenwald developed a deep concern about the plight of blacks in the Democrat ruled South. Democrats had imposed a series of legal restrictions based on race, that parade under the name of Jim Crow laws.  Educational funding for blacks was minimal.

After meeting with Booker T. Washington, the outstanding black leader of the Tuskegee Institute (later the source of courageous black fighter pilots known as the ‘Red Tails’), Rosenwald began building schools for poor blacks in rural areas.

Eventually, he built over 5,300 schools that educated about 36% of the southern black population.

The schools were simple and successful.  Many studies suggest these schools helped black income climb over a third in relation to white incomes at the time, raised scores for military entry, increased both the odds and success of migration out of the South, and even raised IQ scores. They functioned until the 1954 school desegregation decision.

Contrast this program with what we see today, millions of dollars poured into Marxist oriented organizations that have been involved in promoting racism with reverse discrimination and civil disturbance.

Millions more are poured into the Democratic Party, that has blacks trapped in horrible inner-city schools in cities like Baltimore where students can graduate barely knowing how to read.  In 2019, only 13% of Baltimore 4th graders could read at their grade level.  Another study showed that of city of 700,000, about 200,000 people in Baltimore are functionally illiterate.

Many of these cities have been dominated by the Democratic Party and its largest contributor, the teacher’s union, for a half century or more.  The platform of the Democratic Party has come out foursquare against school choice. They will not tolerate competition for the educational establishment.

Today’s billionaires apparently either want to double down on failure or to double down on cowardice.

Rosenwald always treated blacks with respect. He required parents to have a stake in the game by contributing something towards their children’s education, even if it was labor to construct a school. Rosenwald took a different direction in philanthropy wherein he made large grants to various causes on the condition that recipients also raise funds to “cure the things that seem to be wrong.”

He did not give grants for political lobbying. He did not give grants without self-help. He did not give money to buy off violent protestors. He did not give money for racial isolation. White groups were often required to “buy in” to get a project done.

Rosenwald put his money where his mouth is out of religious conviction while today’s billionaires put their money where their political interest is.

Diversity Lands on Mars

The diversity movement has broken free of all earthly bounds

It was recently announced that 40% of management positions on Mars will be filled by minorities.

No, not the red planet, but my former employer, the privately-held Mars, Inc., a conglomerate with an estimated $37 billion in revenue and 130,000 employees.

The announcement is an example of how the diversity movement has become untethered from reality and is now being propelled across the ether by platitudes, virtue-signaling, group-think, double standards, and racial stereotypes.

The announcement was made almost simultaneously with the company changing the name of its Uncle Ben’s Rice to Ben’s Rice, after the Houston-based rice division had been accused of racial insensitivity for the former name and the accompanying caricature of a black man as venerable Uncle Ben. The accusation must’ve shocked the family owners, because they had always avoided politics and prided themselves on their progressive employment practices, high pay for plant workers, and concerns for all stakeholders.

No good deed goes unpunished in today’s hypersensitive America.

To digress for a moment, here’s why I’m qualified to speak about diversity and Mars:

In 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a long commentary of mine that touted the management philosophy of Mars, based on my experience working there as an executive in the 1980s. The article was subsequently used as a case study in business schools.

One of my responsibilities at the company was diversity, although it wasn’t called that at the time, because this was prior to the term being coined in 1990 by R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., in his landmark article in the Harvard Business Review. It was called equal employment opportunity or affirmative action and was often accompanied with sensitivity training and with the firing of managers and workers for prejudicial behavior—all of which I oversaw.

Mars was known for its marketing prowess and for high productivity and efficiency, a deserved reputation that was due in large part to its recruiting at some of the best business schools and engineering schools around the world, as well as its practice of rotating managers between divisions and countries in order to spread best practices across the organization. For example, when I worked at the headquarters of its U.S. confectionery division, the vice president of manufacturing was Dutch, the vice president of R&D was British, the division president was British, and the vice president of human resources had come from Mars’ pet food division.

The company’s divisional offices were always connected to a plant. Although one of the company’s first U.S. plants/offices was in Chicago, and although one of its first European plants/offices was in Slough, the working-class part of metro London, it preferred to locate its newer plants/offices in semi-rural locations in the States and Europe. The thinking was that the work ethic was better than in cities, and that cities had too many constraints in terms of limited space, poor truck access, and neighbors who might object to the noise and odors of 24/7 operations.

This is why, a half-century ago, the company moved the headquarters of its U.S. confectionery business, as well as the adjoining plant that made M&Ms, from Newark, NJ, to Hackettstown, NJ, in the northwestern part of the state near the Pennsylvania border.

It was of course more difficult to attract blacks and Hispanics in Hackettstown than in Newark. The same for semi-rural locations in the Netherlands and Germany. But these limitations were more than compensated for by its operations in diverse parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas.

Cultural dynamics changed within the company when the family retired from day-to-day operations. The dynamics further changed with Mars’ purchase of Chicago-based Wrigley in 2008 for $23 billion. It became more “professionally” managed, which is a euphemism for being managed in accord with conventional American business practices—practices that have resulted in manufacturing workers in other industries being treated like widgets and seeing their jobs shipped to Mexico and China.

It is Mars’ prerogative to change its longstanding management development policies and plant/office locations to advance diversity—and to send a potentially divisive message to its workforce that preferences will be given to some employees over others until 40% of managers are minorities. But there are two troubling societal aspects to this.

The first is legal. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act unequivocally states that employment decisions should not be based on race or ethnicity. Although it’s legal to eliminate racial and ethnic barriers to employment and promotion and to reach out to previously overlooked groups, it is legally questionable to favor some groups over others in order to meet some arbitrary racial mix—not that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cares about discrimination masquerading as diversity.

The second troubling aspect is the ambiguous meaning of “minority.” Most people would say they know what it means, but do they really?

They would say that in the context of diversity, “minority” refers to those races that are in the minority in America in terms of numbers, such as African Americans, Asians and non-white Latinos. Not only are there business benefits to this racial form of diversity, the thinking goes, but it’s a way of redressing past discrimination and achieving social justice for historically disadvantaged people.


A PhD dissertation could be written on the fallacies in this thinking, but since PhD dissertations put people to sleep, let’s look at the biggest fallacy.

The biggest fallacy of the current zeitgeist on diversity is that it is based on stereotypes. The underlying assumption is that all individuals within an official governmental racial category are the same in terms values, beliefs, outlooks, and socioeconomic circumstance. As such, all whites are seen as coming from privilege, even though many are impoverished, unlike, let’s say, college-educated emigrants from an upper-caste in India, or Latinos from the Spanish aristocracy of Mexico. Moreover, all whites are seen as being in the majority, even though there are over 100 unique ethnic minority groups within the so-called white race, such as Italian Americans, who are only six percent of the population, or Iranian Americans, who are only a tenth of a percent of the population.

Memo to stereotypers: A coal miner’s daughter in West Virginia didn’t grow up with the privileges and perspectives of a Mars daughter. Likewise, this grandson of a coal miner didn’t grow up with the privileges and perspectives of a descendant of a Boston blueblood family that became wealthy from the cotton trade. For you to believe otherwise suggests a political agenda or reflects appalling ignorance.

Japan, South Korea and China are manufacturing powerhouses and big markets for Mars and other American companies. But, ironically, they are not very diverse in terms of race, although China has some degree of ethnic diversity. Time will tell if diversity will prove to be a competitive advantage for U.S.-based companies. But even if it doesn’t, diversity should be pursued for other reasons, as long as it’s done legally and includes ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.

The only group that should be excluded from diversity considerations are aliens from the planet Mars.

‘1619 Project’ Founder Melts Down After Criticism Of Her Fake History

This article was originally published by  the Federalist on October 16, 2020.

The lead writer of The New York Times’ anti-American “1619 Project” suffered a meltdown last week when a colleague at her paper offered fair criticism of its revisionist and inaccurate account of history.

On Oct. 9, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens published a more than 3,000-word essay outlining the project’s blunders that have led the academics with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) to call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke its award to the project’s chief essayist, Nikole Hannah-Jones.

“Journalists are, most often, in the business of writing the first rough draft of history, not trying to have the last word on it,” Stephens wrote. “We are best when we try to tell truths with a lowercase t, following evidence in directions unseen, not the capital-T truth of a pre-established narrative in which inconvenient facts get discarded. And we’re supposed to report and comment on the political issues of the day, not become the issue itself.”

Under this model, Stephens writes, “for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs and a Pulitzer Prize – the 1619 Project has failed.

At the heart of his criticism is the project’s central thesis to revise the date of America’s “true founding” to the year 1619, when the first African slaves found their way to the colonies (Native American tribes had kept slaves on the continent for centuries by then). Several months after the campaign’s launch, now that it is infecting some 4,500 K-12 classrooms, the legacy newspaper stealth-edited the project to remove the language of its “true founding” to when the “moment [America] began.”

“These were not minor points,” Stephen wrote. “The deleted assertions went to the core of the project’s most controversial goal, ‘to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regards 1619 as our nation’s birth year.”

The criticism sent the architect of the project into a rage, according to the Washington Post, predictably calling the fair-minded critiques of her deceptive scholarship racist.

“Hannah-Jones, though, was livid, and let Kingsbury and Stephens know it in emails ahead of publication,” the Post reported. “One the day the NAS called for the revocation of her Pulitzer, she tweeted that efforts to discredit her work ‘put me in a long tradition of [Black women] who failed to know their places.’ She changed her Twitter bio to ‘slanderous and nasty-minded mulattress’ – a tribute to the trailblazing journalist Ida B. Wells, whom the Times slurred with those same words in 1894.”

The revisionist project, which has attracted sharp scrutiny since its publication last year, has since maintained full editorial support from the newspaper despite major corrections to its essays and leagues of historians debunking its primary claims.

After a group of leading historians objected to the Times’ project’s false information, the magazine’s Editor in Chief Jake Silverstein wrote back that “historical understanding is not fixed.” In other words, the Times doesn’t care what historians with decades of experience think if it counters the religious narrative that critical race theory demands.

Several months later, the Times finally did issue a two-word correction to its lead essay authored by none other than Hannah-Jones clarifying that keeping slavery was only a primary motivation for some of the colonists rather than all of the colonists to seek independence from Great Britain. While it might seem a minor change, it’s actually a significant one provided that the project has been adopted widely into curriculum teaching children the United States was built for the sole purpose to oppress, a key tenet of the left’s critical race theory driving the nation’s 21st century woke revolution.

It’s worth noting this correction was made before the Pulitzer committee awarded Hannah-Jones its prestigious prize based on an essay that the Times admitted was historically inaccurate.

Despite the corrections, the inaccuracies, the controversies, and the criticisms of the project, Dean Baquet, the executive director of the Times, rejected Stephens’ arguments.

“Our readers, and I believe our country, have benefited immensely from the principles, rigorous and groundbreaking journalism of Nikole,” Baquet wrote, celebrating the work of the same writer who said “it would be an honor” for the nation’s explosion of deadly unrest which tore through the cities this summer to be named”the 1619 Riots.”

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

This column from the Federalist is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of The Prickly Pear or of the sponsors.

The Injustice of Social Justice

In today’s understanding of “social justice”, it is axiomatic that differences in populations are attributed to race.  This is precisely the position held by such enlightened organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

People who are white are lumped together, regardless of socio-economic background or ethnic differences, and treated as a lump of humanity.  Likewise, are “people of color”.

This is the very essence of racism in that it treats all differences as a matter of skin color or in some cases, sexual preferences.

How just is this procedure?

Suppose you are on the Admissions Committee to assess and select incoming medical students for recently or long-established School of Medicine somewhere in the United States.  Imbued with the latest fads about “diversity”, “social justice” and “fairness”, you feel that you must admit people of color or marginalized sexual groups to have a “fair” admissions process.

In order to do this, you must downgrade objective criteria of performance such as grades, test scores, life experiences, the ability to write, to think and to deal with people.  For if you do use merit as the leading criterion, the mix of people you might select will differ from your goal to uplift underrepresented groups in the name of diversity, social justice and fairness.

Thus, a person of superior merit and achievement might well be rejected because of their skin color or because they aren’t defined as disadvantaged or of a particular group identity.  Is that fair treatment to a student that has worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to get where they are?  What if they are Asian?  Do you discriminate against Asians in favor of African Americans?  The answer to the latter is probably yes because that is precisely what many universities do.

What about the future quality of care provided by the medical schools of our nation?  If you don’t select, educate and train the best, are you likely to get the best outcomes for patients?  If the answer is no, is that ethical for the care of patients and supportive of the institutional reputation of a given medical school?  It has taken generations to establish and maintain that reputation, but does that simply get discounted in order to satisfy the desire to make the medical school classes look acceptable to the medical school faculty and administrators steeped in a culture of “diversity “, social justice and political correctness?

What about the patients and their families, some who travel hundreds or possibly thousands of miles to receive what they are led to believe is the very best treatment?  They are willing to pay premium prices for such care.  They come to the institution with some of the most difficult medical problems, many of life and death importance. But instead, in the future, the diversity-based selection of tomorrow’s physicians may well lower the quality of care because merit-based selection was not as important. You are not only being unfair (in medical practice, the more appropriate term in unethical) to future patients, you may well be defrauding them. And, by providing less than optimal care you may well injure or kill somebody.  Is that fair?  Is that just?

And what about the candidates themselves?  Having been selected by you in the name of diversity and fairness, they get the appointment that they otherwise may not deserve. Do they go to sleep at night wondering if they really are the best or are they simply a product of your diversity-based prejudice? Is that fair?  Is that just?

What does this process do to the medical profession itself?  Is the public justified in having confidence in professional training and treatment?  Or is that confidence now unjustified?  How do the members now view themselves?  Do they view themselves as the best life savers possible or just another institution corrupted by politics?

We use Arizona’s and the nation’s medical schools here as an example.  But you could make similar arguments about the teacher who forms your children, your lawyer, your tax accountant, your financial manager or your airline pilot.  In these situations, should you not expect the institution you are dealing with to provide the best possible service with the best personnel?  That can only be achieved by selecting and hiring the best people available.

Another way to look at this is to reverse the process.  Let’s look at professional basketball as an institution.  An institution incidentally, that loudly proclaims for “social justice.”

African Americans make up about 13% of the population.  A fraction of that are males in the age bracket to play professional basketball.  Yet, African Americans overwhelmingly dominate the game.

What if the NBA hired not out of merit but to achieve diversity so the team in question looks like the community it serves? Only about 6% of the population of Portland, Oregon is African American. Is that the way the Portland Trailblazers look to you?  If you really hired on the basis of the “community”, roughly one player should be African American, the rest white, Latino or Asian.  Incidentally, as Latinos are lumped together as a group (Cubans, Mexicans, El Salvadorans, etc.), how many Latinos are there in the NBA?  And where are the Jews?  At one time, Jews made up a considerable percentage of the NBA. The first basketball point ever scored in the NBA was shot by a Jew.

Was firing the Jews and hiring African Americans justice?  Yes, if replaced on the basis of merit and ability. But why is basketball more important than medicine?  Why does merit count when throwing an inflated bladder through a hoop but not when saving lives?

This is the problem you get into when all disparities in performance are assumed to be racial and compound the problem by arbitrarily lumping all individuals together into a group or class to be moved about like pawns in a chess game based on some quite arbitrary notion of diversity.

Social justice as practiced today is not justice, it is reverse discrimination.  You cannot reverse whatever historical injustice that may have existed by practicing injustice in the here and now.



Study finds a ‘Severe lack of Hope Scholarship (HS) awareness’ in all Florida school districts

The following study was provided by the Florida Citizens Alliance:
Good evening Dr Graham- we have completed the assessment of all 67 counties regarding the Hope Scholarship. All 3 recommendations from the interim report several weeks ago are fully substantiated.
Bottom line, the Hope scholarship and it’s intended expansive nature are a best kept secret and 1000’s of students are being negatively impacted by the missed opportunity for a productive future.
These  recommendations from the interim report are confirmed:
Consequently, Florida Citizens Alliance is making this formal request that the FL Department of Education take 3 immediate actions:

  1. Update the FL DOE Hope Scholarship page to explain the expansive nature of the HS program to include a) school districts have an affirmative duty to explain bullying involves additional categories of threat, intimidation and harassment; b) bullying applies to anyone on school property or a school sponsored event including teachers, administrators, contractors , etc. ; c) student eligibility is immediate for any incident a parent “deems” to be bullying, threat, intimidation or harassment. and d) It is the responsibility of every person to report these incidents, not just parents.
  2. We strongly recommend the FL DOE website include an FAQ in English and Spanish ( feel free to use ours as an example) and  it specifically should address  types of new situations that qualify as scholarship eligible such as (but not limited to):– If a parent believes their child is being threatened or intimidated by age-inappropriate
    sexual content
  3. If a parent believes their child is being threatened or intimidated by advocating socialism and denigrating free markets
  •  If a parents believes their child is being threatened or intimidated by an employee teaching evolution as a fact or denigrating the biblical view of creation
  • If a parent believes their child is being threatened or intimidated by the Marxist propaganda of BLM or the 1619 project
  • If a parent believes their child is being threatened or intimidated by any form of religious indoctrination
  1. The FL DOE to send a letter to each school superintendent that specifically addresses their affirmative duty to create bullying policies , staff training and a parent awareness program featuring the expansive nature of the Hope Scholarship.
  2. The FL DOE provide formal training to the administrators of all private schools so they understand the Hope Scholarship as a tool they can use to help parents looking to remove their child from a public school “bullying” situation. This is especially needed for the over 800 private schools already certified to accept Hope Scholarship students.

**These actions are fully supported by existing statutes FS1002.40, FS 1003.42, FS 1006.28 , FS 847.012 and 847.001 and 876.01.
Our results: Full Spread sheet attached

  • 42 Counties that have no mention of the Hope Scholarship
  • 4  Counties have a bullying section with no mention of the Hope Scholarship in it.
    Hillsborough  Nassau Orange St. Lucie
  • 7 Counties with links to the FLDOE for the Hope Scholarship without any context
    Charlotte   Clay  Escambia Lee Monroe  Palm Beach Volusia
  • 6 counties that misrepresent the Hope Scholarship as Broward did
    Brevard Broward Indian River Manatee Marion Pinellas
  • 6 Counties that explain the Hope Scholarship as the current FL Doe site does (the DOE site currently fails to explain the expansive nature)
    Hernando Lake Leon Pasco  St. John’s Sarasota
  • 2 counties have a mention of the Hope Scholarship but don’t make it easy to find

We are happy to discuss but aggressive action by the FL DOE and School Districts is required. We understand from an email last week from you Dr Graham that an update to the FL DOE website for the Hope scholarship is in process. We eagerly look forward to it portraying the expansive nature of the Hope Scholarship.
Keith Flaugh Managing
Director, Florida Citizens Alliance
©Florida Citizens Alliance. All rights reserved.

Action Civics Is Teaching Our Kids to Protest

Many young Americans seem to have a growing disdain for our country. According to a Gallup poll, pride in our nation has declined, especially among young adults.
Young adults are taking to the streets and not merely protesting but wreaking havoc, rioting and looting, tearing down statues, and shutting down anyone who doesn’t share their perspective.
One reason this is happening is what our children are being taught in school. And that doesn’t mean only in college. We all know college campuses have become centers of radical indoctrination, but now it is happening in K-12 as well, through something called action civics, a new movement in civic education.
As educator Thomas Lindsay explains, action civics was born in 2010 when six organizations set out to redefine civic education. Dissatisfied with traditional civics, which depended on book learning, they wanted to create a new civics that was more experiential. They wanted kids to engage, get involved, get active.

When the elections end, the work begins. Learn what the election results mean for the future of America now >>

The problem is that without a solid understanding of why the Founders were so deliberate in designing our self-governing republic, with its separation of powers to prevent any one branch from becoming tyrannical, or establishing the rule of law so that we would not be subject to the whims of any one person, we risk falling into the same traps of other, less just regimes.
Indeed it is no accident that today’s protests are looking more like the French Revolution, with its guillotines and beheadings, than the American Revolution, with its debates and deliberations.

>>> To learn more about action civics, watch “How Action Civics Teaches Our Kids to Protest,” the Oct. 28 webinar featuring educator Thomas Lindsay held by The Heritage Foundation. To read his study, published in September by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, go here.

Robert Pondiscio, himself once a proponent and teacher of action civics, wrote that it has grown into “a manipulative and cynical use of children as political props in the service of causes they understand superficially, if at all.”
Indeed a study published by the National Association of Scholars found that action civics projects essentially teach students to protest for progressive political causes.
As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, pointed out, the “new civics” is in fact a form of anti-civics. It does not teach students how our government works or, even more importantly, their critical role as citizens in a self-governing republic. Rather, it simply teaches them how to be activists.
For many today, it feels as if our country never has been more divided and the ideals of our Founders never more at risk. That is due in no small part to what is being taught in our schools.
Parents must step up and take a more active role in their children’s education, carefully watching what their children are being taught. The good news is that with the COVID-19 crisis and the prevalence of online learning, it is easier than ever before for parents to keep an eye on what is being taught to their children.
But what parents do with that information is what really matters. They must engage with schools, school boards, teachers, and principals to ensure that students are taught more than simply how to protest.

Katharine Gorka is director of the Center for Civil Society and the American Dialogue at The Heritage Foundation’s Feulner Institute.
Podcast: Can Young Adults Learn to Love the Free Market?
Trump v. Biden: 2 Candidates, 2 Starkly Divergent Stances on Abortion
I Visited DC on Eve of the Election. This Is What I Saw.
ICYMI: Hunter Biden Emails, Texts Raise Questions That Need Answers

A Note for our Readers:

When the election ends, the work begins.

Join Heritage Foundation leadership for a tele-townhall on Wednesday, Nov. 4 at 2:00pm ET for an in-depth analysis into what the election results mean for the future of America.

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

America, Please Beware: A Toxic Theory of Race Relations in Our Schools

Most Americans were not aware when a toxic theory of race relations deeply embedded itself into our culture, especially our schools.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) sounds like sophisticated academic reasoning, but it is not rooted in any science nor subjected to disciplined analysis. It is based on the assumption that white people are born with a belief in their own superiority and with fixed prejudice against other races. It can never be eliminated because it is ‘inborn’.

Racism is defined as the mindset of judging people on the basis of their race. It is profoundly racist to believe that any person’s beliefs can be reliably determined based only on their skin color.

CRT represents the exact opposite of the vision proclaimed by generations of American civil rights leaders, culminating in Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. King’s dream was of an America where races live together amicably, where color blindness was a shared goal and where race really didn’t matter that much.

To the CRT crowd, race infuses every aspect of life. It determines our character and behavior. If all white people are bigoted, then the nation they founded and its institutions must also be racist, so the notion of ‘institutional’ or ‘systemic’ racism naturally follows.

Critical Race Theory thus becomes the public ideological foundation of Black Lives Matter (despite their true Marxist identity and goals) and others wishing to foment hatred toward America. CRT also places the rest of us on a cruel hamster wheel. If we really are unable to forgo our innate racism, why even try? What good are attempts at interracial friendship and mutual acts of kindness? And if you object to being deemed automatically racist, that only provides further proof of your bigotry.

But does systemic racism really explain, for example, higher black incarceration rates? Blacks comprise 13% of America’s population, yet committed 53% of the murders in 2018, 54% of robberies and 34% of armed robberies, which would logically result in higher arrest and incarceration rates.

Asians, by contrast, comprise 5.6% of the population but commit to just 1.3% of the murders, 1.4% of the robberies and 2.1% of armed robberies. Is this proof that police have a pro-Asian bias and ignore Asian criminality?

Or is it more likely because across the races, there is a direct correlation between having a father in the home and crime rates. Take note of this ominous statistic – there’s a greater than 70% unwed pregnancy rate among blacks? Even more ominous, the Marxist founders of BLM advocate eliminating the nuclear family throughout society.

Still, almost unbelievably, CRT has become mainstream academic dogma in our universities. Although proponents avoid publicity, many parents are now discovering that even elementary school children are being introduced to the basics of CRT.

They’re serious. One national organization insists that “stopping the systemic dehumanization” requires “flooding our children with counter messages… until there is no racial inequality in incarceration and no brutality from the police and others.”

Educators in Chicago are provided with a “say their name” tool kit where Angela Davis, an unrepentant terrorist, admonishes that “in a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist.” In other words, kids, no room for discussion or nuance. You are either all in for BLM/CRT or you are the enemy of decency.

Major corporations, hoping to avoid racial shaming, are supportive. In the name of ‘diversity training’, white employees are told they should “struggle to own their racism“ and “invest in race-based growth“ .’Safe spaces’ are created where humiliated whites sit in mandated silence while black employees explain “the discomfort of their racism“ and “what it means to be black”. If they become too emotional or too mean, whites are not allowed to protest.

It’s chilling to think how far we’ve come from the days when racial hostility was in decline, when in response to our racist past, Americans were determined to do better and to bring us together. Critical Race Theory drives us apart and precludes the very initiatives that would support progress for black citizens.

Make no mistake, this is not an accident. CRT is not meant to improve the lot of blacks but to stoke the resentments that will enable the Marxist takeover of the American Republic that BLM and their radical allies fervently seek.

America, please beware.


Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.

The Real Threat to Your Guns is Not Just Rust and Politicians

The biggest threat to your fundamental right – your right to keep and bear arms – may not be what you’ve always feared. It may not be new laws. The risk may not even be from the two main political parties, though they both need constant watching, as Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers warned.

No, the threat may be coming from something we were keenly alerted to back in the 1950s and 1960s, which we’ve grown inured to, bored with, discarded onto history’s trash heap. We may have forgotten it as a guns-and-ammo threat, but it’s still there. As alive as ever, active as ever, working its nefarious magic, seeking to take every gun you own, every round of ammunition you possess, either by direct force or through subversive covert action. That enemy is our old friendly villain, Marxism and communism, now in control of fully one third of the world’s population and making inroads here. Mass media, infected with that scourge, is not alerting us. They hide it, disguise it, aiding and abetting a mortal enemy of our Republic.

Thomas Jefferson warned, “Be eternally vigilant” to preserve freedom. He could never have imagined an enemy like Karl Marx. The rioting, looting, arson and upheaval we have WITNESSED on our televisions every night, is being run by dedicated Marxists with announced plans, signage, upraised fists. They make no secret of it. Class warfare. Call it “racism” if you want, but that’s not it, we are as free from racism as any nation you can name, which is why American immigration is basically a one-way street – inbound. No one is breaking into Cuba, China, Africa or lining roadways escaping here. These nightly mobs have communist influences and international provocateurs at their heart. Leaving you armed to resist is not their plan.

In fact, leaving your police armed to resist is not the plan either. Stop and think. Could true Democrats or Republicans support any version of eliminating armed police, abandoning swaths of cities to mobs? No. They have been overwhelmed by a mindset, a propaganda wave, a core tool of communism. The very brainwash that turned 5,000 years of a brilliant Chinese empire’s art, music, religion, history, culture and the rest, into a monolithic, terrified, follow-the-leader brutal dictatorship is here, proposed right now, in your face.

“The United States will eventually fly the communist flag. The American people will hoist it themselves,”
–Nikita Khrushchev

The proof is in writing, in Congress (HR5717), and the Senate (S3254). While our primary gun-rights networks have been distracted with familiar lists of horribles – these bills have them all – the real gun bans are more subtle, more total, and more devastating than anything our enemies ever presented before.

You’ve heard these before. Sure, it’s not good. At least it’s familiar, mostly:

  • AR-15 Confiscation
  • AR-15 Look-alike Confiscation
  • Ammunition and Magazine Limits
  • Shopping Restrictions
  • Carry and Loaded-Possession Bans
  • Semi-auto Bans
  • Bans by gun type – Including guns with grips
  • Taxation on Arms, Ammo, Accessories
  • Registration Schemes
  • Background Checks
  • Personal Transfer Bans
  • Private Sale Bans
  • Gun Show Bans
  • Training Restrictions
  • A “Heller Ban,” Overturned in D.C. by the U.S. Supreme Court, no loaded or accessible gun at home unless under attack
  • Plus, Joe Biden’s website calls for prohibiting teaching teachers about marksmanship and firearms.

None of that matters though. It’s a distracting smokescreen – a diversion. Hidden in page after page of gun bans and conditions, no one will be allowed to have a gun or ammo at all – including anything you already own – without the new “comprehensive” federal gun license that’s only issued at an official’s discretion.
Democrats wrote this and put it in both houses of Congress, ignoring the fire it sets to the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. Republicans have stayed quiet, regardless of their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Gun ownership under Democrat’s control requires a psychology evaluation. There is no indication who will conduct this, or how it might be appealed if unfavorable. An unelected federal board of decision makers will decide:

  • Are you of “sound mind and character” (no standards described, to be Board determined later);
  • Do you have “factors that suggest that the individual could potentially create a risk to publicsafety”  (what armed citizen doesn’t potentially pose such a risk?);
  • Do you meet or fail to meet “any other requirements the State determines relevant” (to be set after elections, without any statutory parameters – completely arbitrary, limitless control);
  • And then authorities shall, “make a determination of suitability” for your ownership and possession of arms, including your own (in other words, a “may issue” vs. “shall issue” license at the federal level, with socialists in charge, if they get their way);
  • These are written into the bill. In addition, authorities, “shall establish standards and processes by which licensing authorities can revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of a covered license” required to possess firearms;
  • The new required federal gun license, with mandatory written and shooting testing in addition to the psych tests, and numerous other conditions, applies to all guns you own or seek.

Gun-averse mass media has “overlooked” this. The Second Amendment is being changed from an uninfringed right to a might-be-issued licensed and scrutiny under dictatorial control. Go ahead, say it: “They can’t do that!”

How can an armed electorate even resist this wild scene? Democrats’ “representatives” are “with them.” Speak against them, they attack your principles. The few people standing up against this cultural revolution find themselves the ones facing “hate” charges – thought crime. Police are ordered to stand down! The ones who stand up are decommissioned, disbanded and defunded. It’s the socialist way. One election is all that stands between this and collapse of the Constitution.

“The United States will eventually fly the communist flag. The American people will hoist it themselves,” Nikita Khrushchev predicted. Even now, our leaders propose funding Red Flag Laws (in HR5717/S3254). Mass media and many citizens think that’s great. “No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism…. We will destroy you from within,” Khrushchev again.

In 1963, communism’s 45 goals were put in the Congressional Record. These few lines illuminate the mob’s movement and threat to your guns and way of life:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

It’s Marxism, infecting America – as predicted – our guns’ and liberty’s greatest enemy.

Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, 10 of them on gun law and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. See his work or reach him at GunLaws.com. This article originally appeared in Dillon’s Precision Blue Press.

Prop 207: Written by the Marijuana Industry, for the Marijuana Industry

Prop 207 doesn’t simply decriminalize marijuana. That could have been done in a page or two. Marijuana sellers, instead, wrote 17-pages of changes to Arizona law, creating a lucrative recreational marijuana industry for themselves, at the cost of Arizonans. The sweeping changes in Prop 207 would impact current laws governing driving impairment, workplace safety, as well as protections through employers, landlords, and HOAs.

Perhaps the more egregious change is the elimination of Arizona’s DUI standard for marijuana impairment. Prop 207 rids the books of this law without replacing it with another clear standard of impairment. This makes it harder to prosecute impaired drivers, while we still lack the technology to gauge marijuana impairment during a roadside stop by police. This leaves police ill equipped to keep our roadways safe. Marijuana-related traffic deaths in “legal” states bear that out.

After Washington State legalized recreational marijuana, marijuana-related traffic fatalities doubled. In Colorado, someone died every three days in 2018 in marijuana related traffic crashes.

The tragedy on the roadways in these states shouldn’t come as a surprise, nearly 70% of marijuana users in Colorado admit to driving stoned, and almost a third, do it daily.

Prop 207 doesn’t limit the risks to roads. It ties the hands of employers who want to keep a drug-free workplace. The initiative forbids employers from taking any adverse action against employees based on their use of marijuana, and limits their ability to keep employees from coming to work stoned. Prop 207 only allows employers to prohibit employees from using marijuana and its high potency concentrates at the worksite. There is nothing stopping employees from using the drug, and then going to work stoned.

Consider the consequences of day care workers or employees at an elderly care facility.

The authors of Prop 207 put profits above kids by allowing the sale of marijuana-laced candies, gummies, cookies, and other snacks that appeal to kids. They further serve themselves by allowing advertising of such pot-snacks on TV, radio, and social media.

This, though we know marijuana use damages the developing brains or teenagers. It impacts learning, memory and coordination, causing academic failure, according to the Mayo Clinic. It inhibits brain development causing permanent IQ loss, and it hinders learning, attention, and emotional responses. And, it can lead to long-term dependence. 

study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that after the legalization of recreational marijuana, the number of cases of adolescent marijuana use disorder increased 25%. 

States that legalized recreational marijuana have among the highest teen use rates in the nation. Is this what we want for Arizona’s future?

The marijuana sellers who wrote Prop 207 are more concerned about creating and keeping a future customer base. That’s why they made using marijuana a statutory right under the initiative, and hamstrung landlords and HOAs to ensure nothing stops their customers from growing a dozen 10-foot tall plants in their back yard; and virtually no community can ban pot shops from their neighborhoods. They even included in the proposition front porch delivery, regardless of how many kids are playing out front.

You won’t find these details in their ads, on their road signs, or even in most news reports. Instead, they tout the 16% tax that they claim will bring much needed revenue to the state. But the tax is capped, and the revenue is earmarked, assuming it’s ever realized – which is unlikely.

In the six Western states with recreational marijuana, tax revenue accounts for less than 1% of state revenues. And Colorado spends $4.50 on marijuana related expenses for every $1 in marijuana revenue.

As these details emerge, support for Prop 207 drops. A recent poll shows support at just 46%, and opposition at 45%. Another poll puts likely voter support at just 47%. These are far lower numbers than early polls indicated.

As voters consider all the facts, they must remember this key point: Arizona laws passed by ballot initiatives are almost impossible to change or fix. The state legislature cannot remedy problems that arise. Arizona would be stuck with every detail of Prop 207, just as the marijuana industry intended.

Cindy Dahlgren

Communications and Media Specialist
The Center for Arizona Policy

O: 602-424-2525 | Mobile: 856-607-4208

www.azpolicy.org |  Subscribe to Engage Arizona

The History of BLM Matters

Look. Let’s get this clear. Black Lives Matter as a civil rights slogan is perfect. Who could disagree? The phrase simply states what ought to be obvious to anyone who isn’t a racist. Matters grow more complicated when someone states “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter.” Quickly, one is marginalized and even attacked as a racist.

Behind the slogan and the movement, however, is the organization of the same name: Black Lives Matter. BLM is under the leadership of committed Marxists advancing an anti-capitalist, anti-police, anti-nuclear family, anti-heteronormativity, anti-prison, anti-Israel and anti-fossil fuels agenda. Antifa’s agenda is nearly identical except they throw in a “global, communist order.”

In the past months we have witnessed the wholesale evaporation of the “peaceful” component in big city protests with rioting, arson and looting in Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, New York, Atlanta and other “blue” cities. Even before this ominous turn, careful observers had noted that the “peaceful protestors” egged on, supported and covered the tracks of the violent aggressors, seeming to operate in a functional division of labor.

The insurrection then made a crucial tactical shift. The central target became the police. This includes other forces of law and order as well. It is not just a matter of having run out of statues to tear down or businesses to loot and burn. It is a tactical shift of these neo-Marxists to assault the fundamental institutions of the “state.”

The violence continues to be led by Black Lives Matter and autonomous white partners and auxiliary co-revolutionaries comprised primarily of the terrorist group Antifa. Certainly, not a syllable of opposition to the violence by any of these groups has been voiced let alone a commitment to end it.

Each of the three co-founders of BLM are admitted Marxists with ties to ‘60s black radical ideology. Patrisse Cullors’ mentor was a white Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who was on the Executive Committee of the Weather Underground. Eric Mann was a disciple of Mao and an admirer of Herbert Marcuse one of the leaders of the Frankfurt School prior to WW 2. He expected the intellectuals in Europe to replace the working class as a revolutionary force. Marcuse mused that “The ghetto population in the United States could be such a force.”

Aliza Garzar, another co-founder, admired and hailed Joanne Chesimard of the Black Liberation Army who was convicted for the murder of a police officer and escaped to Cuba. The third BLM co-founder is Opal Tometi. She actively supports the brutal dictator of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro.

Some argue that because BLM is decentralized you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. Hawk Newsome, leader of BLM of Greater New York recently declared “We pattern ourselves after the Black Panthers, after the Nation of Islam, we believe we need an arm to defend ourselves.”

The BLM head in Toronto, Yusra Khogali, another Marxist, stated that “white people are a genetic defect of blackness.” BLM’s Los Angeles head Melina Abdullah calls for dishing out “violence and pain” to whites. It goes on and on.

The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 abolished Jim Crow. Martin Luther King Jr sought an America where people would be judged by “the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.”

This did not sit well with the burgeoning Black Power Movement of the late ‘60s. Figures such as the Maoist Huey Newton of the Black Panther Party shaped black revolutionary and white revolutionary consciousness towards separatism and violence.

The anti-Vietnam War movement generated support for Third World revolutionaries and the “most oppressed” domestically. As Mao said “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The police have the guns. They must be “defunded” and defanged is the latest slogan. This is pure Marxism-Leninism.

Lenin made very clear in his book State & Revolution that power cannot be transferred to a new ruling class until the state and its monopoly of the means of violence is “smashed.” The Democratic Party’s local and national leadership has tacitly accepted this devil’s brew by defunding the police and stepping back from law and order.

The deeper danger and tragedy are that many in the Democratic Party’s leadership, as Obama once said, seek to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Obama declared at John Lewis’ funeral with great irony that the filibuster was a “Jim Crow” relic.

If the Democrats control both Houses of Congress and win the Presidency and the filibuster is ended for Senate passage of bills, simple majorities would be sufficient to pack the Supreme Court, give statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C., enshrine federal mail-in voting and a host of other measures truly commencing a fundamental transformation of the Republic.

We would enter a period of majoritarian tyranny that the Founders warned about. The Constitution would be well on the way to being shredded legally. And even this would not be the full end game of the likes of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Marvin A. Treiger, PhD was formerly the Youth Chairman of the Communist Party of Southern California, a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Union and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s. He converted to conservatism and Americanism in the aftermath of 9/11 while in a solitary three-month retreat. He resumed activism when Barack Obama became the Presidential nominee in 2008. Dr. Treiger is a retired Psychotherapist.

Profound Leftism and Indoctrination In Our Universities: Is There a Solution?

It’s become almost trite in our day to point out that colleges and universities are disproportionately left wing. Does anyone dispute it anymore? Universities are grossly intolerant of conservative viewpoints and Phoenix gets really hot in the summer.

But that is precisely the danger. We’ve become so accustomed to knowing that faculty are radically unrepresentative of the people at large, it no longer surprises us when we hear stories or read details confirming it. Sometimes we find it funny, on par with the satire of a witty Vonnegut or Kafka novel, mocking or laughing off some of the more rank absurdities of the university system. But it’s deadly serious. These same administrators and faculty members are propagandizing the next generation. We see the fruit of it now.

According to a Gallup poll in 2019, 37% of Americans identify as conservative, 35% of Americans identify as moderate and 24% of Americans identify as liberal. Ideologically, America remains a center-right nation. When it comes to party affiliation, the Democrats fare a little better. In another Gallup poll the same year, 47% of Americans identify politically with the Democratic party and 42% of Americans identify politically with the Republican party.

What about college professors? A recent study by Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens showed that college professors are 95 times more likely to donate to Democrats than to Republicans. The same study also explored party affiliation. Among the faculty at Harvard University, there are 88 registered Democrats for every registered Republican. At Georgetown the ratio is 75:1. At Princeton the ratio is 40:1. The more elite the school, the more unrepresentative is the faculty but even at smaller colleges and regional universities, the ratio is extremely lopsided.

Nor is this the only study confirming extreme partisan bias. A study in 2016 examined the nation’s top 40 colleges and universities, focusing on five fields: economics, history, journalism, law and psychology. The study found a ratio of 11.5 Democrats for every Republican. History was the worst, with a ratio of 33.5 Democrats for every Republican. Another study by Mitchell Langbert in 2018 examined 51 of the top liberal arts colleges in the country. At 39 percent of these colleges, the faculty had zero Republicans. Zero. The vast majority of the remainder had so few Republicans that it made virtually no dent at all in the university’s intellectual life.

Academia has leaned Left for many decades, since at least the end of World War II. Yet the problem has greatly intensified over the last quarter century. Survey data revealed that in 1969 about 27 percent of American professors described themselves as at least moderately conservative. By 1999 that number had plunged to 12 percent and by all indications, today it lies somewhere in the low single digits. The number of faculty who identified as Left (at the expense of moderate or conservative) grew proportionally. As late as 1984, only about 39 percent of American professors, on average, described themselves as Left. By 1999 that number had soared to 72 percent. The biggest shift, then, occurred around the early to the mid-‘90s, so that today it is simply a given – of course university faculty are left wing. We forget that not too long ago, faculty were not so homogeneous. We forget that universities used to be a place of discourse, debate, and disagreement between scholars of diverse ideological perspectives. Today, ideological consensus is the rule and the consensus goes one direction.

Barring fundamental changes in the university system, this trend will only worsen. Langbert’s 2018 study found that among younger, tenure-track professors, the ratio of Democrat to Republican is almost 13:1. It is worst of all in the humanities (English, literature, philosophy, history, anthropology, art, etc.). Among tenure-track professors in the humanities, there are 32 Democrats for every Republican. Think about that: only three percent affiliate with a party supported by forty-two percent of the American people. Those same professors, on receiving tenure, will train graduate students to become a new wave of PhDs, more prone to groupthink than even the last and will monopolize the search committees that hire new faculty.

What have we created?

Colleges and universities are becoming full-fledged indoctrination centers. Some have already reached that dreaded point; others are fast approaching it. Sadly, that is not hyperbole. Even STEM fields are giving way to this trend. Why have we allowed this? Why are we subsidizing this? Why are we sending highly impressionable young adults to institutions that are overtly, systemically and unapologetically hostile to ideas and values (moderate or conservative) cherished by upwards of 70 percent of the American population?

What do we do? The answer is complicated. But obviously something must be done. We can begin by urging our state legislatures to grow a backbone: demand that they hold taxpayer-funded universities accountable and refuse to subsidize them if the extreme ideological biases continue. Additionally, alumni must be encouraged to withhold donations to endowments, i.e., defund, to affect change in the profound ideologic imbalance endemic in higher education today.

This needs to be a priority. Liberty itself is at stake. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, called knowledge “the soul of a republic.” If that is the case, we’re in deep trouble.