Hamas Likely Holding American Hostages As Leverage Against Biden Admin, Experts Warn thumbnail

Hamas Likely Holding American Hostages As Leverage Against Biden Admin, Experts Warn

By The Daily Caller

  • Hamas is releasing dozens of hostages, including Israelis, foreign nationals and a small number of Americans, in exchange for continued pauses in conflict with Israel.
  • Hamas is likely holding on to the American hostages for as long as possible to pressure the Biden administration to continue calling for pauses, as bringing Americans home has been made a top priority, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • “Hamas is getting guidance from the Iranian regime on its hostage strategy. They both understand that American hostages are particularly valuable,” Gabriel Noronha, former special advisor for the State Department, told the DCNF.

Hamas could be retaining American hostages to pressure the Biden administration to keep pushing for pauses in Israel’s counteroffensive in the Gaza Strip, according to foreign policy experts and former government officials who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Hamas is releasing dozens of hostages, including Israelis, foreign nationals and a small number of Americans, in exchange for temporary pauses in the conflict with Israel as part of a truce deal that was agreed to last Tuesday and extended on Thursday, according to the Associated Press. It is likely Hamas could be retaining as many American hostages as possible so that the Biden administration will push for more pauses in the conflict, in the hopes of their eventual release, experts told the DCNF.

“Hamas clearly sees a strategic utility in delaying Israeli punishment for as long as possible,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the DCNF. “To that end, they are using hostages, particularly foreign and American hostages, as human shields to push for additional pauses in the conflict amid lopsided hostage deals.”

“Hamas is likely retaining as many American hostages as possible for leverage, in order to extend and expand the ceasefire,” Simone Ledeen, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy and Strauss Center senior fellow, told the DCNF. “We can assume that the American hostages are being held in the same bleak conditions as have been described by the released hostages.”

Over 100 hostages, including four Americans, have been released by Hamas since Oct. 7, according to The Washington Post. Hamas still retains approximately 143 hostages, including seven Americans – although that number has not been independently verified outside of Israeli intelligence, according to the Washington Post and USA Today.

Two Americans, a mother and her daughter, were released by Hamas on Oct. 20, separate from the current truce deal. Another American, a four-year-old whose parents were reportedly killed during the Oct. 7 attacks, was freed on Sunday, and the latest release was an American woman on Wednesday, according to Axios.

The Biden administration has been vocal that freeing these Americans is a top priority, though President Joe Biden said on Friday that “we don’t know” the timeline for their release. The administration has been vocally supportive of the ongoing pauses in the conflict between Israel and Hamas to secure more hostage releases, as well as to deliver humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“When will the first American hostages be released?”

BIDEN: “We don’t know what the list of all the hostages are” pic.twitter.com/Mrlz5Gu3Zv

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 24, 2023

CIA Director William Burns traveled to Doha on Tuesday for a secret meeting with an Israeli intelligence official and Qatar’s prime minister to discuss continuing pauses for the release of more hostages, according to the Post. Burns stressed to the officials that it was of prime concern that Americans be released swiftly.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East and retired CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer Michael Mulroy told the DCNF that Burn’s trip underscored the Biden administration’s desire to bring Americans home at the cost of extended pauses in the conflict, noting that he thought Hamas might be taking advantage of this position.

“Yes, it is possible that Hamas will keep American hostages until the end to leverage the US to pressure the Israeli government to extend the truce,” Mulroy told the DCNF. “I believe this is a real concern of the White House and likely one of the reasons the Director of CIA [was in Doha] and Secretary Blinken is going back to the region soon.”

“Could it be because they want the U.S. to push for more ‘pauses’ in the conflict, so that it can bring home more hostages?” Mulroy said. “Absolutely. That is the concern.”

National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby said during a press gaggle on Tuesday that he thought there was “no indication” that Hamas is retaining American hostages as leverage. But Iran, Hamas’ patron, has used American hostages as leverage against the Biden administration before, most recently to acquire $6 billion in previously frozen assets in exchange for five Americans, former Special Advisor for the State Department Gabriel Noronha told the DCNF.

“Hamas is getting guidance from the Iranian regime on its hostage strategy. They both understand that American hostages are particularly valuable – especially after President Biden showed his willingness to pay $6 billion earlier this year in ransom payment,” Noronha told the DCNF. “Each additional American hostage they offer to release is also more leverage they can put on the Biden Administration to pressure Israel to accept these agreements (referring to the continuation of ceasefires).”

The truce between Israel and Hamas will expire on Friday, though it could be extended into next week, according to the WSJ. It is unclear whether American hostages will be among those released during that time frame.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

JAKE SMITH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘We Don’t Know’: Biden Has No Update On Freeing Of American Hostages While Touting Release Deal

‘I Cannot Prove What I’m About To Say’: Biden Says His Own Diplomacy May Have Triggered Hamas Attack

Blinken Turns On Israel In Private Meeting, Warns They Don’t Have The ‘Credit’ To Wage Prolonged War: REPORT

Hamas Kills Three Israelis In Jerusalem During Gaza Truce

Biden Reportedly Repeated Story About His Dead Son Yet Again While Being Brow-Beaten By Muslim Activists About Gaza

Israeli Intelligence Had Hamas Plans A Year Prior To Attack: REPORT

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


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

Biden Regime Abandoning Israel thumbnail

Biden Regime Abandoning Israel

By The Geller Report

“Biden administration is setting the stage to abandon Israel. What started off as “We are totally with you in destroying Hamas, which is as bad as ISIS,” is deteriorating into “You don’t have our support unless you can dismantle Hamas very quickly with very limited civilian casualties.” That’s impossible.” — Mark Dubowitz on X


Not only impossible but delusional. We have seen all of Gaza cheer Hamas and the mass slaughter of Jews, many taking part in the October 7th massacre. One hostage escaped and was captured and returned to Hamas by civilians.

Biden’s hack Secretary of State meets with war cabinet and tries to RESTRICT Israel so they won’t be able to eliminate Hamas

BY THE RIGHT SCOOP

Joe Biden’s hack Secretary of State Antony Blinken is pressuring Israel to end their war in Gaza without asking them to actually end it.

According to new reports, Blinken told Israel that the longer this war goes on in Gaza, the greater the international pressure will grow to stop the war.

He even suggested Israel restrict their military operation in southern Gaza in such a way as to avoid more civilian casualties.

Here’s more from Axios:

Scoop: Blinken warns Israeli war cabinet that the longer Gaza war goes on in the current intensity, the more international pressure on the U.S. and Israel will grow. My story on @axios https://t.co/m0R54Vd77R

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) November 30, 2023

Blinken met on Thursday in Jerusalem with Netanyahu and the members of his war cabinet.

The possibility of an Israeli operation in southern Gaza was a major topic of the discussion, according to two sources with direct knowledge.

One source called the discussion “a frank exchange of views” — hinting at growing disagreements between the parties on the way forward when it comes to the IDF operation in Gaza.

Two of the sources said Blinken was the one who initiated the conversation when he asked to be briefed on the Israeli military’s plans for southern Gaza and asked how long Israel thinks the military operation will continue in its current scope.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

WATCH: Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony 2023 in Gaza

Gaza’s ‘Innocent Civilians’ Recaptured Israeli Hostage Who Escaped From Terrorist Captivity and Returned Him To Hamas

MSNBC Cancels Vicous Jew Hater Mehdi Hasan’s Show

Report: UNRWA Teacher, Gaza Doctor Kept Israeli Child Hostages

Dean of Columbia Law School Resigns Amid Rampant Jew-Hatred Horrors on Campus

HAMAS TERROR IN JERUSALEM: Islamic Terrorists Open Fire At Bus Stop, 3 DEAD, 16 Injured, Ceasefire Broken Again

UK Teachers, Afraid Of Muslim Students, Censor Themselves

POSTS ON X:

Israel: We will dismantle the Hamas terrorist network

Sec. Blinken: No you won’t

Biden regime is now stopping Israel from fully defending itself against a terrorist organization

Insane https://t.co/vcvtHNdGxS

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) November 30, 2023

I don’t see why Blinken feels the need to lecture the Israeli military about human rights when the abusers are on the other side of that wall in Gaza. 

Biden’s putting more pressure on Israel than Hamas, their backers in the UN, and the anti-semites on the Left. pic.twitter.com/RzOb7oCfOj

— Rep. Mike Waltz (@michaelgwaltz) November 30, 2023

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

The Nazi Roots of Hamas thumbnail

The Nazi Roots of Hamas

By Jihad Watch

What the true origins of Hamas reveal about its nature.

On Oct 7, Hamas, a terrorist organization born in part out of a collaboration between Nazis and Islamists, carried out the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

The butchery of men, women and children and the elderly, was not only ‘Nazi-like’, it was in some ways the final act of a Nazi crime nearly eight decades in the making.

In 1946, the Muslim Brotherhood held its founding conference in Gaza at the Samer Cinema. The movie theater which had opened two years earlier and would be shut down, along with much of Gaza’s movie theaters as the Islamist movement strengthened its grip over the area, represented the secular Western culture that the Islamic organization wanted to destroy.

It was a modest beginning for the group that would eventually become known as Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s expansion into Israel began a year earlier in 1945. The Brotherhood’s foreign backers, the Nazis, had surrendered earlier that year. The thousand pound checks which had helped take the Brotherhood from just another fringe Islamist theocratic movement to a dominant force in Egyptian political culture would no longer be coming. And Nazi Germany’s armies would not be arriving to help them kill all the Jews.

Without the Nazis, the Brotherhood no longer had the money or any protection from the British, who might seek to punish their Nazi collaboration, or the Egyptian monarchy which was worried that the Islamist group was seeking to overthrow it. By 1948, Egypt had banned the Brotherhood and Hassan al-Banna, its charismatic leader, had been shot dead in the street a year later.

Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, had admired Nazi organizations and methods. A British report noted that he had made “a careful study of the Nazi and fascist organizations. Using them as a model, he has formed organizations of specially trained and trusted men who correspond respectively to the Brown Shirts and Black Shirts.”

The Muslim Brotherhood from which Hamas sprang had been built in imitation of the Nazis.

The Nazis and the Brotherhood had fundamental religious and ethnic differences but shared common goals: especially when it came to the Jews. A Nazi agent who helped funnel money to the Brotherhood reported on one of its conferences calling for Jihad in Israel.

Hitler’s Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, had helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood together with the Nazis. And it was Husseini, who after their defeat, provided the focus for the Brotherhood.

Hajj Amīn al-Husseini had met with Hitler, urged him to exterminate the Jews of Israel, and recruited Muslims to fight for the Nazis. He had hailed the Muslim Brotherhood as “the troops of Allah” while Al-Banna praised Hitler’s Mufti as the “hero who challenged an empire and fought Zionism, with the help of Hitler and Germany. Germany and Hitler are gone, but Amin Al-Husseini will continue the struggle.”

The Muslim Brotherhood and Husseini’s Jihadis in Israel would carry on Hitler’s work.

The defeat of Nazi Germany marked the end of the hope that the legions of the Third Reich would storm into Egypt and Israel, and that their local allies like the Brotherhood and the Mufti would be able to wipe out the Jews and all their political adversaries across the region.

Instead the Brotherhood would have to replicate the Nazi model, building a political organization with a paramilitary arm that would seize power in Egypt, Gaza and across the Muslim world.

The Muslim Brotherhood set up cells across to Israel beginning in Jerusalem.

Al-Bana turned over this mission to Said Ramadan, his son-in-law and a key Brotherhood figure who would later usher in an alliance with the Saudis that would allow the organization to bring in new wealth and expand worldwide. In Europe. Ramadan would direct the rise of the central Muslim Brotherhood operation in Munich, at a mosque set up by ex-Nazi Muslim soldiers who had defected to the Third Reich during WWII. A CIA report from the 1950s described Ramadan as a “fascist type” who was obsessed with driving the Jews out of Israel.

Setting up Brotherhood organizations across Israel was more than an expansion, it was a mission. With the Nazis gone, invading Israel was a way to allow the Brotherhood to build up its military capabilities without triggering an immediate crackdown by the authorities.

The Brotherhood’s new capabilities were aimed at Israel, but also at Egypt and at shoring up the power of local clans. Its presence in Gaza was part of an alliance with important families, including the Shawwas, who had been close to the Ottoman Empire and were mistrusted by the British. Said al-Shawwa, the Ottoman mayor of Gaza, had served on the Supreme Muslim Council alongside Hajj Amīn al-Husseini. And the Gaza Brotherhood would go on to be headed by Zafer Sahwa whose experience had come out of the Islamic Scouts.

The Scouting movement had struck a different chord in the Muslim world than it did the UK. Islamic scouting was explicitly meant to prepare young boys for Jihad. Some Islamic scouting movements were Nazi inspired. Al-Husseini’s scouting movement in Israel called themselves the ‘Nazi Scouts’ and dressed in Hitler Youth outfits. The Muslim Brotherhood had founded its own scout group “based on the concept of Jihad” and also modeled on the Hitler Youth.

In the months before Israel’s declaration of independence, Hassan al-Bana arrived in Gaza to witness the first wave of assaults by Brotherhood forces against Jewish communities.

Kfar Darom, a beleaguered Jewish village in Gaza, was the first target. After months of siege, the Muslim Brotherhood’s battalion attacked the village of Kfar Darom where dozens of Israeli militia members protected 400 men, women and children. The Brotherhood’s attacks were beaten back with determined resistance until its Jihadists were forced to retreat leaving behind seventy of their dead. Among the Jihadi attackers was an Egyptian named Yasser Arafat.

The Brotherhood had been defeated, but only temporarily. When Israel forcibly removed the Jewish communities of Gaza in 2005 to end the Israeli presence in Gaza, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar entered the Kfar Darom synagogue and laid claim to it in the name of Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s first Jihad failed badly, but it succeeded in its true goals. Its role in the invasion of Israel alongside the Egyptian military built an alliance. After Muslim Brotherhood mobs rioted against the British in the streets, Egyptian officers used the prearranged opportunity to seize power. The relationship between the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood was rife with tension from the beginning and like so many such relationships in the region, the internal rivalry was redirected into violence against non-Muslims. In this case once again Israel.

The Brotherhood’s mobs had paved the way for a military coup by destroying Egypt’s westernized nightlife, including its theaters. In Gaza, they were once again tasked with doing the military’s dirty work by attacking Israel, but once again the core purpose of the Brotherhood was to ‘Islamize’ Gaza, and eventually Egypt and the whole world, through its terror campaign.

Long before the Six Day War, during which Israel reclaimed Gaza, Muslim terrorists known as ‘Fedayeen’ or ‘those who die for Allah’ struck across the border with the aim of murdering Jews. Terrorist atrocities included the Massacre at Scorpions’ Pass during which the men, women and children on a bus coming back from a beach town were massacred.

The alliance between the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood was the first true modern Islamic terrorist operation. Egyptian military officers trained and dispatched terrorists out of Gaza to cross the border and murder ordinary Israelis. The Egyptian government dismissed the atrocities as the work of local Bedouin Arabs over whom it had no control.

The Israelis knew better, but the plausible deniability established by the Egyptian government and the Brotherhood was good enough for the United Nations. When Israel struck back at the terrorists, it was condemned for attacking civilians and when it targeted the Egyptian officers behind the attacks, it was accused of provoking a regional war. Terrorism had transformed a war between nations into a conflict between a state and insurgents posing as civilians.

Seventy years later, this is still the role that Hamas plays for Iran and Qatar among others.

In exchange for waging war on Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood received financing, training and the authority to maintain control over those areas that it used for its operations. Under the umbrella of a Jihad against the Jews, it was able to enforce Islamic law and maintain a ruling class made up of its members and influential families allied with the Brotherhood.

Israel’s defeat of Egypt in the Six Day War and subsequent liberation of Gaza left the Brotherhood and other terrorist groups adrift. Deprived of secure bases in Gaza, a new generation of ‘Palestinian’ terrorist groups was launched under the Soviet umbrella, most famously the PLO, claiming to pursue a ‘Palestinian’ state through international terrorist attacks like airplane hijackings and the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympics.

The international scale of the newly born ‘Palestinian’ movement was made possible by Soviet backing which provided allies and safe houses with Marxist terror groups across Europe. The Muslim Brotherhood lacked that global foothold although under operatives like Ramadan it was working hard to replicate the infrastructure of mosques and religious centers that it had used to gain power in places like Gaza across America and Europe.

The Muslim Brotherhood today dominates Islamic groups in America and Europe because of these efforts, but at the time its terrorism lacked the scope that the Communist alliance provided the ‘Palestinians’. And yet while Arafat became an international star, the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza was busily digging in and building an Islamic infrastructure that would outlast him.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza was less interested in the fictional construct of ‘Palestinianism’ than in controlling the mosques, the educational system and recruiting young men to fight for it. Where the PLO and groups liked it worked from the ‘outside in’, the Brotherhood worked from the ‘inside out’. Instead of fighting on a global stage, it worked on ‘Islamizing’ Gaza.

The Israeli authorities, like the Americans and Europeans, paid little attention to the Brotherhood. Religious violence seemed outmoded in the era of Marxist terrorism.

The Egyptian authorities had understood that the real threat came from mosques and religious schools, but Israeli officials, unfamiliar with Islam and disdainful of it, did not take it seriously. They certainly did not want to give the impression that they were religiously intolerant. During the liberation of Jerusalem, the government had allowed the Muslim religious authorities to retain control over the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, to prove their tolerance.

The Israeli tolerance for the Brotherhood led the PLO to accuse it of being an Israeli creation. Hamas and the PLO would later spend years accusing each other of this, the worst thing imaginable, working for the Jews. The PLO’s insults would then be repeated by leftist and fringe right politicians and activists who would claim that Israel had “created” Hamas.

Hamas had technically predated the official rebirth of the State of Israel. It had always been there under various names as part of the Gaza Muslim Brotherhood. Israel had not created it, but much like most Western nations, the Israelis were guilty of tolerating it, providing it with the permission it needed to operate and acceding to what seemed like religious requests.

Instead of suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, the Israelis viewed its mosques and religious schools as a benign alternative to the PLO. They were looking for radical students planting bombs, not men praying in mosques. And the Brotherhood, as it did in America and Europe, and in the two years until the Oct 7 massacres, had a knack for appearing benign.

In the 1970s, Islamic terrorism had not yet become a commonplace concept. Few understood  that Islam would become the next great threat after Communism. And while the Israelis chased the PLO, the Gaza Muslim Brotherhood built up its infrastructure that would emerge as Hamas.

A decade later, the Brotherhood’s Mujama al-Islamiya, the Islamic Center, a seeming charitable organization, was reinvented as Hamas or the Islamic Resistance Movement. The mosques, schools and social welfare institutions had been a terrorist organization all along. When Hamas hides missiles under mosques, schools and hospitals, it’s doing what it was doing all along.

Hamas was a charity before it was a terrorist group. And it was a terrorist group before it was a charity. This is typical of Muslim Brotherhood organizations and owes something to the Nazis. Hamas terrorism is theologically Islamic, but it had learned from the Nazis and the Marxists, two movements that had profoundly shaped the modern Arab Muslim world, how to develop and build secret societies in the form of political organizations and how to use them to seize power.

The 1988 Hamas charter freely mixes Koranic antisemitism with Goebbelsian rants about the Jews. There is the classic genocidal Hadith that looks forward to the day “when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees” and “the stones and trees will say ‘O Moslems, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’” and the claim that the Jews are behind “the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs” and “alcoholism” that reads like it came from Der Sturmer.

The Islamic mass murder of Jews goes back to the days of Mohammed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s members did not need the Nazis to tell them to kill Jews.

But the Nazis helped finance the Muslim Brotherhood with the specific aim, among others, of killing Jews. The Nazis helped show the Muslim Brotherhood new ways of organizing, distributing propaganda and waging war. And that changed the history of the world.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood continued to spin off splinter groups, some directed at a domestic power grab, others at Israel, and still others at the rest of the region and the world. Al Qaeda is dominated by such a splinter group. As are most non-Shiite terrorist groups. And Muslim political organizations, like CAIR in the United States, are products of the Brotherhood.

The Nazis were defeated, but they helped build a successor movement that is waging war, political and military, around the world. Hamas is just one of the many organizations birthed by the Brotherhood, but it is one of the few in whose origin story the Nazis had a significant role.

The Nazis had wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to wage war on the Jews in Israel.

On Oct 7, Hamas, an organization born in part out of a collaboration between Nazis and Islamists, carried out the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Those who defend the massacre are not just collaborating with Hamas, but with the Nazis.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

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

Weekend Read: How Do You Invest For Deflation? thumbnail

Weekend Read: How Do You Invest For Deflation?

By Neland Nobel

A few essays ago, we suggested that given the extreme financial leverage (overuse of debt) in both the governmental and private sectors, the risk of a deflationary period may be higher than many believe.

You might remember the extreme events during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009.  We are still living with the echo from that period. Money market funds failed and had to be rescued. Brokerage houses like Merrill Lynch failed and had to be sold off to Bank of America.  Lehman Brothers failed, and they had been in business since the Civil War.  There were increased bankruptcies.  Real estate declined.  In the Phoenix area, one of the hottest markets in the country, we suffered about a 50% decline in the value of residential housing.  The S&P 500 declined over 50% in value.  In short, it was a scary and painful period, even with all the governmental attempts to reverse the process.

Stocks declined by over 50% and indexing did not help at all.  It took years to recover.

So, while we readily admit that the bias of our system (constant fiscal and monetary stimulation) is towards inflation, deflationary interludes have and likely will occur in the future. 

Inflation is something we are all used to and we know what to do. Buy assets: stocks, gold, commodities, real estate, and valuable collectibles like art and gemstones. Go into debt and pay your creditor back with cheaper dollars than those you borrowed and leverage your inflationary gains. However, what to do in deflation is a bit foreign to many investors.

A deflationary period suggests that authorities either lose control of events or are simply overwhelmed by events.  If history is any guide, they will attempt to re-inflate, and the FED will pivot back to lower interest rates and the use of Quantitative Easing.  That of course will take time and there is still lots of leeway to get hurt in declining markets.

Thus, deflationary investing is more like an intermediate trade rather than long-term compounding based on the historic growth of the economy.  The attempt is to make money and reduce losses elsewhere, for the duration of the contraction, knowing that the inherent bias of our system is towards inflation or currency depreciation.  In this sense, investing for deflation is not long-term investing, but it is not day trading either.  Likely positions will be held for several years, but usually, that is about all.

If we are correct that deflation poses a threat at least at some level of probability, then the question is:  what as private citizens and investors can we do about it?

Assuming we will be able to determine the change in the economic weather in time (this is much more difficult than we are making it sound), here are some basic ideas to work with.

The most important thing to remember is that financial leverage that is so beneficial on the way up, has the same leverage on the way down.  This suggests paying down debt before the recession.  Very often loans are collateralized based on the value of a stock portfolio or a real estate. If those assets decline in value, you might be placed in a liquidity crisis.  The bank may ask you to pay down the loan because the collateral has fallen below or near the value of the loan. You may not have the cash to do that.  The result may be a fire sale environment for your assets that will destroy much or all of their value.

So, the first broad observation is to reduce debt and financial leverage and increase holdings in cash-like instruments.  Today, with interest rates at least as high as inflation, seek those cash-like instruments that have the highest credit rating.  That would include things such as insured CDs and US Treasury Bills.  The returns now are pretty decent and they are not a bad place to set out the storm.  Avoid the siren song of high yields.  Things that have high returns do so for a reason, they are higher in risk.  Deflationary investments are basically de-risking the portfolio.

Notice this is not a strategy to make a lot of money.  It is basically an attempt to get out of harm’s way and make at least a decent return while doing so.

No doubt this sounds boring but boring is good sometimes.

There are some quite dynamic positions that can be taken, but you must understand the trade-offs between risk and return.

Shorting the market (betting on the downside) does not work very well for the retail investor.  Perhaps the safest is buying put options since your risk is limited to the premium you pay for the options, but your timing must be very good or the options can expire worthless.  However, timing is extremely difficult and overwhelmingly retail investors lose when they buy either put or call options.  For most people, this is not a good strategy because timing is just too tricky.

There are now a number of reverse funds available today.  Unlike options, they don’t have the time constraint.  However, they often don’t track the market well and many brokers restrict the retail public from buying them.

In most previous cycles, once it is clear the economy is in trouble, interest rates start to fall for two reasons.  One is the drop in demand for loanable funds since there is little need to borrow money when business is contracting.  Secondly, the government and the Federal Reserve typically respond by pushing rates downward.  Stocks may benefit from falling rates, but it is not a sure thing.  We are talking about conditions where profits are falling and investors are scrambling for cash by selling things, including stocks.

The play with the higher probability of success is to buy longer-dated quality bonds.  Bond prices go up when interest rates go down.  The lower the coupon on the bond, and the longer the maturity, the more “duration” you get.  The ultimate would be a long-dated, zero-coupon bond.  They can be purchased individually or you can buy them in a fund such as Pimco’s ZROZ.

Unlike put options, the longer you hold a zero coupon bond (assuming interest rates are stable), the more valuable they become (they accrete interest).  You also get considerable leverage, without using debt to get that leverage.  Leverage in this sense means you get a lot of appreciation, for a relatively small outlay of cash.  The gains you hope for will offset losses you may be suffering elsewhere.  The term usually used to describe this process is “hedging”.   You use a modest amount of funds to do a lot of work, hoping to protect the overall value of a larger portfolio.

ZROZ was not available at the beginning of the crisis but it went on to go up fourfold in value.  A little bit of zeros did a lot of work. Note that they have fallen sharply after rates began to rise in 2020.  These are very much a creature of the interest rate cycle.

Another popular choice is the exchange-traded fund, TLT.

Bonds went up about 60% during the collapse of many other markets.

Certainly, a decline in rates has been a feature of all the last few cycles.  However, in today’s environment, even this has to be considered a “trade.”

The reason is this business cycle happens to come in the middle of a historic shift in demographics.  The peak of the baby boom was in 1957.  Most people get Medicare at age 65 and basically full Social Security benefits at 66 or so.  Add 66 to 1957 and you get 2023.  In short, a historic wave of the elderly will hit both “entitlements” over the next decade while the number of younger taxpayers is shrinking.  The end result will be to drive spending and deficits through the roof.  Coupled with the wild expansion of spending under Biden, the markets will have to digest a huge outpouring of Treasury Bonds.  These circumstances will likely drive interest rates back up.  If so, the “bond trade” will have a relatively short window:  the beginning of the bond recession and the immediate response of the government to it.

Not too long afterward, the longer-term financial crisis (the government selling huge quantities of debt) could depress bond prices (another way of saying interest rates will rise again), or rates will not fall as far as in past cycles.  We just don’t know.

Gold should get an honorable mention. Gold is still a key international banking asset and its role has been increasing as central banks have been buying at the fastest pace since the 1971 devaluation of the dollar and the end of the Bretton-Woods treaty arrangements.

During the last deflationary cycle, gold just about doubled in price.

Gold can’t default, and therefore, is a good holding during a period where defaulting can be an epidemic. Gold is the only international asset that is not someone else’s contractual obligation. In addition, gold tends to do well when central banks panic about economic contraction and go the other way by printing excessive amounts of money.  Either inflation or deflation, gold can work during times of economic instability.  It tends to do the worst in periods of stability.

We would note that the unwinding of the world’s biggest-ever debt bubble will likely be the antithesis of stability.

We can’t say if all patterns seen in the last financial crisis will prevail.  But history does tend to repeat itself.

Reduce debt, raise cash, have safe cash instruments, have some longer-dated bonds, and own some gold.  These are strategies to consider if deflation develops.

*****

Charts are courtesy of stockcharts.com and are drawn by the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

‘It Has Been Pretty Awful’: First State To Decriminalize Hard Drugs Looking To Reverse Liberal Experiment thumbnail

‘It Has Been Pretty Awful’: First State To Decriminalize Hard Drugs Looking To Reverse Liberal Experiment

By Dana Abizaid

Officials in Oregon are considering reversing key provisions of a 2021 liberal experiment to decriminalize heroin and fentanyl, The Telegraph reported.

The rationale behind the original initiative, called Measure 110, was that decriminalizing hard drugs would make access to treatment easier for addicts, according to The Telegraph.

Currently, support for Measure 110 in Oregon, the first state to take the step of decriminalizing hard drugs, appears to be waning, according to the outlet. Whereas Measure 110 was backed by 58 percent of voters in November 2020, a recent Emerson College pollrevealed that public opinion has swung drastically, with 56 percent of voters now saying they would back a repeal, the newspaper reported. (RELATED: San Francisco On Track For Record Drug Overdoses As Opioid Epidemic Grips City)

“It has been pretty awful,” Matt Siegmund, the owner of Gardner Floor Covering in Eugene, told The Telegraph.

Siegmund says that the homeless have sheltered under the awning in front of his store for a long time, but there has been a change since the new measures were enacted.

“In the past, we were dealing with older drunks, but since Measure 110 passed the people are younger and more belligerent. They have been defecating and urinating. For the last three weeks, police have been sweeping the homeless people away so I and my staff can come to work,” Siegmund said. 

Under Measure 110, addicts are given “tickets” for drug offenses that result in $100 fines, The Telegraph reported. However, the penalty would be waived if the addict rang a self-help line and sought treatment.

Around 6,000 people were ticketed in Oregon, but fewer than 125 rang the self-help line, Eugene’s Police Chief, Chris Skinner, told The Telegraph.

“We don’t have even really one successful example of somebody that went from a citation issued on the street to self-assessment to addiction services to a place of wellness,” Skinner told the Eugene City Council.

Skinner warned that Oregon was “on pace to shatter the record for overdose calls for service and shatter the record for overdose deaths. Police officers and firefighters are administering Narcan, life-saving Narcan at an alarming rate,” according to The Telegraph.

Police are not demanding the complete reversal of Measure 110, but they are supporting making drug possession a criminal offense again that would force addicts to have compulsory treatment, The Telegraph reported.

A measure which would would re-criminalize hard drugs could go on the ballot next year, according to The Telegraph.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Pixaby

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

House Hearing on Antisemitism and Terror Financing Considers Purpose and Practice of Charitable Tax Exemption thumbnail

House Hearing on Antisemitism and Terror Financing Considers Purpose and Practice of Charitable Tax Exemption

By Michael E. Hartmann

Rep. David Schweikert: There are continuing congressional “conversations on charitable giving . . . and how we make sure it’s doing good in the world and not ultimately financing evil.”

The U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee “has jurisdiction over the tax code” and must address “issues that have been laid bare in the aftermath of October 7th”—the date of Hamas’ horrific terror attack on Israel—according to the opening statement of its chair, Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, during a public hearing yesterday.

The first of these issues is the fact that “tax-exempt charities operating in the United States are providing support, encouragement, and potential financing to Hamas and Hamas-affiliated groups,” Smith continued as he began the hearing, entitled “From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing.” “This concern is not theoretical. In the early 2000s, the U.S. government identified and shut down the Holy Land Foundation in the United States. That foundation funneled $12.4 million from Americans to Hamas.

“Shockingly,” he went on, a public charity under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code “called American Muslims for Palestine, and its related (c)(4)” social-welfare group, “have been sued in federal court for operating as an alter ego of the Holy Land Foundation. The two groups have many of the same leaders and may be continuing the same efforts to support Hamas.”

In his testimony to the committee, Anti-Defamation League chief executive officer and national director Jonathan Greenblatt urged “the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to conduct a thorough review of the tax-exempt status of any extremist organization,” as he put it in the prepared statement he submitted. “The IRS should also release guidance to colleges and universities so that they can ensure compliance” with existing law.

Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California later suggested a joint, bipartisan letter from Committee members to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and IRS asking for just such a review, after which Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon endorsed the idea, too.

Status and Support, Status Quo, and Suggested Shifts

Overall, during the questioning of the witnesses, almost all committee members decried the attack on Israel, as well as the antisemitism demonstrated in its wake, and the official tolerance if not encouragement of that antisemitism on campus. A number of members specifically inquired about issues surrounding the legal structure of tax-incentivized nonprofit-dom and whether nonprofits in this context were conforming to the policy purpose of those incentives in their practices, as well as whether there might thus be a need for statutory reform or clarification.

Republican Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee, for example, asked Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior vice president of research Jonathan Schanzer about H.R. 6408—a proposed bill of which Kustoff is the primary sponsor—to outright terminate the tax-exempt status of terrorist-supporting organizations. “I do see this as a very valuable tool, to revoke the tax-exempt status of these organizations,” said Schanzer, a former Treasury Department analyst of terrorism finance.

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. testifying in House Ways and Means Committee hearing. Credit: YouTube.

Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert, chair of the committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, asked Schanzer how much money “from this country is actually leaking in to violence and functionally dystopian evil in the world?” Schanzer replied,

I will say this: in the 2000s, at the height of the War on Terror, we were doing a very good job of making sure that the nonprofit sector was not leaking in to the world of terrorism. In the last 10 or 12 years, we have seen a significant drop-off in actions taken against 501(c)(3)s here at home. … I’m sure that those men and women who are working in law enforcement are doing a great job on a range of other challenges, but I think we have probably lost the scent on a lot of them and I can tell you that there are a handful that we’re watching right now. …

I think we need to get back in the business of tracking these 501(c)(3)s. … Americans need to know who they’re giving their nonprofit dollars to and if they don’t, they run the risk of possibly supporting something that they don’t want to support.

Greenblatt chimed in. “Can I make a recommendation? Donor-advised funds—Schwab, Vanguard. These are the largest charitable organizations in the United States,” he said. “Their leadership should be brought in to ensure that they are not funneling funds to these terror-supporting organizations.”

To which Schweikert responded, “You’ll be happy to know the chairman and a couple of our members here, who actually sit on” the Intelligence Committee, “we’ve had side conversations on charitable giving … and how we make sure it’s doing good in the world and not ultimately financing evil ….”

A few other members also said tax-exempt status should not be given to or kept by groups involved, directly or indirectly, in the kind of recent antisemitic and violent activity discussed during the more than three-and-a-half-hour proceeding.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

VIDEO: Brace Yourself For What’s Coming in 2024 thumbnail

VIDEO: Brace Yourself For What’s Coming in 2024

By The Geller Report

Watch this clip of Victor Davis Hanson warning about what will happen during the 2024 election.

Transcript by Real Clear Politics:

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: They look at Trump as a vampire and they put a stake in his heart but they’re afraid that that stake could come out any time. That he’s undying and they’re afraid of him. They are terrified of him.

They are terrified of him because they think he’s smarter this time and he has just cause to really get angry because of what they did to him. They can write all of The Atlantic Monthly and New Yorker clever, glib little essays about “Donald Trump is a threat to democracy,” and their little Molly Ball in Time Magazine essays how clever and brilliant they were with their cabals and conspiracies to get rid of him.

But deep down inside they know that if the right ever did that to Barack Obama or Joe Biden, they could have really made something out of the fact that Barack Obama had a hot mic expose where he told the president of Russia, “You tell Vladimir that I will be flexible on missile defense.” That’s the security of the United States of America. “If he gives me space in my last election.” Putin did do that. That’s an impeachable offense if a phone call to Ukraine is. So they understand that, the right could have done that to them, and they understand now the right probably will do that to them for their own survival, and they are scared.

They’re saying that if a MAGA candidate wins, and they win the House and Senate, they’re cooked because they’re going to get special prosecutors and go after the Biden family like they’ve never gone after anybody. And they’re going to find stuff because we know Joe is crooked. And then they’re going to go after [Attorney General] Merrick Garland and [Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro ] Mayorkas. And they’re not going to stop. And that’s why they’re scared.

Everybody thinks the danger passed, they got what they wanted. No, no, no, you’re never going to see anything like what they’re going to do in 2024. All of this could have been reconciled, all they had to do was say Donald Trump should not be president if that’s what they believe, and we’re not going to do any lawfare or try to change the voting laws or pack the court, we’re not going to let in two states, we’re not going to try to abolish the Senate filibuster, we’re not going to try to change the voting ID laws, we’re just going to play under the rules we have, we don’t need $419 million by Mark Zuckerberg infused, we don’t need Sam Bankman-Fried, the crook, giving us $100 million, we’re not going to go under the radar with George Soros, we’re just going to show you, the American people how we think Donald Trump should not be president and we’ll have a fair election. They can’t do that, and they don’t trust themselves.

They think anybody in his right mind would close that border right now. Anybody in his right mind would recall all of those DAs that have destroyed these major cities. Anybody in his right mind would not beg the Saudis or the Venezuelans or the Russians or the Iranians to pump oil on the eve of a midterm, or pump the strategic petroleum reserve when you have so much natural gas in the U.S. Nobody in their right mind would do that. nd nobody in their right mind would ever just pull out of Afghanistan without warning just so Joe Biden can say that on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 or the original October invasion of Afghanistan, “I am the president that got us out.” Nobody would do that. And nobody would print $6 trillion when there’s pent-up demand post-Covid lockdown and there’s a supply chain disruption, and all that money without an audit or examination of who got it and why and how it was spent, but to inflate the economy and ruin it. Nobody would do that! So they know that and they know that they cant take that record to the American people.

They have a deductive mind because their ideologues, so they start with a premise that we’re for social justice and equity of result, so we’re morally superior and smarter than anybody else. And therefore we’re entitled to do things other people don’t do. So if, under the cover of Covid, and frightening people about Covid, we can change all the voting laws so that 30%, instead of voting absentee and early voting shall become 70% in most states, with very little audit of the level necessary to authenticate most ballots.

They just do all this stuff because they start with the deductive principle that, “We are better, this is the vision and thereof the following must happen.” And if things don’t fit the narrative, they go after the person, they censor. That’s how they work. And if you keep that in mind, than everybody makes sense.

What I’m saying is they go on from one lie to the next.

So everybody now knows that Donald Trump was impeached for things that Joe Biden got away with. OK. Everybody knows the laptop was authentic. Everybody knows that now. Everybody knows it would have made a big difference in that debate when Donald Trump said it was and Joe Biden said, “Oh, no, no, 51 authorities.” Everybody knows that Christopher Steele was a fraud, and especially Glenn Simpson. And that Hillary Clinton took over an old Never-Trump file and inflated it with a million bucks, got the FBI on it to hire Christopher Steele as a consultant-informant, hid her so-called legal expenses when she was fined and cited for that violation, through Perkins-Coie, Fusion GPS, and the DNC, and that file was fraudulent. It was made up! I said that the first time I saw it, everything in it was false. And yet we wasted 22 months and $40 million to know what was obvious. No apology, not only no apology but they got Pulitzer Prizes, some of these reporters.

Every time they give these monstrous lies, there’s no apology, and why should they? They’re just narratives, the’re post-modern Foucauldian, Lacan, Derrida narratives. They were useful. That’s what they look at. They were useful at the time, because when we went through the Mueller investigation, we crippled Donald Trump and therefore we were able to stop him. We had Anonymous, he was burrowed deep into the Homeland Security. He was a minor official, but we said he was one of the major operatives in the Trump administration, we lied. And then we printed his op-ed because it did what it was supposed to do, it weakened the right-wing agenda, so they think. And we got Admiral McRaven to come in and write an op-ed and said Trump should leave, the sooner the better. And then we got all of the four-star generals, McCaffrey, McCrystal, all of them, to say that Trump was Hitler, that he was Mussolini, that he was a liar, he was dangerous. We got Mark Milley to call the Chinese. We did all of this.

Yes, we do not want this to be done to us. If right now, a retired four-star general said Joe Biden is senile or dangerous of the Afghan thing is a disaster and he should be removed sooner or later, or his weaponization of the DOJ or FBI is Mussolini-like, or his hounding of individual people at school boards, or the way he conducted the Mar-a-Lago raid is Nazi-like — and I’m just quoting from what they’ve said — you know what’s going to happen to those people? You’re going to get [Attorney General] Merrick Garland to call up the Pentagon and they’re all going to be slapped with a Code 88, uniform code of military justice and court-martialed for disparaging the commander-in-chief. Trust me, they would in two seconds. And that’s not going to happen. They’re not going to say anything because they’re not equally going to apply their standards of correct behavior. And second, they’re going to say things about Donald Trump because they know the media and the Pentagon are not going to do anything to them. Now? They would destroy them if they ever criticized the commander-in-chief. They would go after them like you would not believe. And they know that.

We’re talking about, to sum up and end this, they understand deterrence. They are saying to the American people, “We are SOBs, we’re capable of everything and anything. Which side do you want to be on? Because if you’re on our side, you can do what Hunter Biden is, there are no consequences. If you want to say the voting machines are crooked like Jill Stein, go ahead, she said that in 2016. If you want to be Barbara Boxer and 32 Democrats and say you’re not going to certify the Ohio count and hold up the whole election, don’t worry, they did it in 2004. If you’re Al Gore and the attorney general says the votes have been counted and certified in Florida. Oh no, we’re going to sue and hold up the entire election for a month. And so, you can do all of that — as long as you’re on our side. But if you don’t do that, and you want to go on the other side, you’re in big trouble.”

That’s the message they’re trying to send, that’s what we’re really getting down to. Join the winning side. It’s sort of like in the Soviet Union, if you’re part of the nomenclature and you join the party, you’re exempt; if you’re not, well, you’re on your own.

People say to me: “You’re an academic and you spent your whole life, how did you deal with the 94% of all academics who are left-wing? … Why are they so left-wing? Do they have tenure? They’re exempt from worrying about losing their job? … Are they idealistic because they deal with words?”

I say, “No, they understand that if you want to get tenure and be promoted and liked, you parrot the majority. If it paid better, they’d be fascists.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Exposing America’s Cultural Revolutionaries thumbnail

Exposing America’s Cultural Revolutionaries

By Craig J. Cantoni

A review of The Canceling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott, 2023, Simon & Schuster, New York, 443 pages.

The Canceling of the American Mind appears to have been written in a hurry and could’ve used some editing and wordsmithing.  But it’s worth reading for its many examples of how colleges and other institutions have been captured by people who are not only illiberal but completely bonkers.

Warning:  You might have to be slightly bonkers yourself, or at least masochistic, to endure reading example after example of America’s version of China’s Cultural Revolution.  It’s difficult to read the examples without becoming infuriated and pessimistic.

Anyone who claims that the danger of wokeness and cancel culture is right-wing hyperbole will be disabused of the notion after reading the book, assuming that the person’s mind has not been sealed shut or shrunk to the size and density of a golf ball from spending too much time on shallow news media or even shallower social media—or from getting a degree from a college of illiberal learning.

The authors of The Canceling of the American Mind are not right-wingers, conservatives, or Trumpers, or white supremacists, or racists, or fascists, or election deniers, or climate deniers, or vaccine deniers, or deplorables, or jingoists, or any of the other pejoratives used by the cultural revolutionaries to silence opposing views—the same revolutionaries who claim to deplore racial, ethnic, cultural, and gender stereotypes.

Author Greg Lukianoff is a self-identified classical liberal and the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan organization devoted to free speech that, among other endeavors, rates colleges on their commitment to free expression and their aversion to ideological orthodoxy.  Coauthor Rikki Schlott, a member of Generation Z and a research fellow at FIRE, is a classical liberal with libertarian leanings. 

Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt authored the 2018 book, The Coddling of the American Mind, which was based on their 2015 article by the same title in the Atlantic, which is certainly not a conservative publication.

In the interest of fairness, Lukianoff and Schlott lambaste illiberal conservatives who try to ban speech they disagree with or try to cancel speakers.  For sure, Trumpers won’t like what they say about the former president.  But most of the book focuses on the illiberalism on the left, because that is where the most egregious violations of free speech can be found, especially on college campuses, where Democrat faculty far outnumber Republican faculty.

To that point, the book cites studies that give the ratios of Democrat to Republican professors in academe.  The overall ratio is eight to one, but in most disciplines, it is much more unbalanced.  For instance, no Republicans could be found in anthropology. Engineering and chemistry are the only disciplines where Republicans outnumber Democrats. 

At the same time, one in four professors identifies as socialist.  It’s doubtful, however, that they will be giving up their tenure, short hours, and cushy working conditions to show solidarity with the proletariat.

Again, the book abounds with examples of how unhinged mobs have stopped speech that was counter to their worldview, kept those with different views from speaking, viciously attacked ideological heretics with verbal abuse and threats of physical violence, and destroyed the heretics’ careers in the process.

The revolutionaries come across as morally superior, thin-skinned, self-absorbed, and self-righteous.  They have a childish take on complex issues, have temper tantrums like spoiled brats, and claim that their safety and very identity are threatened by views that differ from their ideological uniformity.  Having made it to Volume II of a twelve-volume set of knowledge and wisdom, they believe that they are fully educated, have nothing new to learn, and are far smarter than those who have made it to only Volume I.

Even the ones who are students at prestigious and obscenely expensive colleges parrot in unison all of the voguish clichés, banalities, and sophistries about undefined minorities continuing to suffer from White privilege, patriarchy, racism, oppression, and colonization.  They ignorantly believe that Whites are homogeneous, come in one skin shade, don’t have wide variations in ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and have not suffered from injustices.

Projecting their own sheltered childhood experiences onto all Whites, the wealthiest and most preppy among the revolutionaries are the most neurotic about White guilt and the most eager to embrace discriminatory and exclusive forms of diversity and inclusion.  

It’s impossible to have rational conversations and constructive debates with the revolutionaries, as illustrated by an example from the book, an incident you may have heard about when it happened in 2015 at Yale.

The hullaballoo was triggered by Halloween costumes, of all things.  It began when administrators at the university issued guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate costumes.  Erika Christakis, the associate master of Yale’s Stillman College, took exception to the guidelines in a community-wide email, saying that while she deplored insensitive costumes, she didn’t think that a bureaucratic, paternalistic decree was the proper way to handle the matter.  Her preference was to trust that students were mature enough to self-police to address any insensitive fellow students and handle any conflicts in a way that would be a learning experience for everyone.

She had overestimated the maturity of Yale students.  They became outraged over her email.   She was excoriated in a letter signed by 700 students, faculty, and alumni.  The letter said: “To ask marginalized students to throw away their enjoyment of a holiday, in order to expend emotional, mental, and physical energy to explain why something is offensive, is–offensive.”  The letter concluded with the bizarre statement that the signers simply wanted their “existences not to be invalidated on campus.”

Marginalized students?  Yale is one of the world’s most expensive, selective, and prestigious universities, a university where graduates go on to become captains of industry, investment bankers, senators, presidents, Supreme Court justices, and so on. 

Invalidated existences?  If an email disagreeing with a policy on Halloween costumes can invalidate a student’s existence, the individual needs counseling or needs to go to parts of the world where people worry about having enough to eat to continue their existence or worry about their existence being ended by extremists killing them in their sleep.

The persecution of Erika Christakis continued after the letter.  Students engaged in a three-hour confrontation with a Yale College dean while making outrageous demands.  Some students demanded that they be warned before Christakis entered the dining hall.  Others demanded the firing of not only Erika but also her husband, Nicholas Christakis, who also was a Yale professor.

An angry mob of about a hundred students would go on to surround Nicholas in a courtyard, demanding his apology and cursing at him. Graduating students would later refuse to accept their diplomas from him.  Erika would eventually leave Yale, and Nicholas resigned from Stillman College but stayed at Yale as a professor.

In 2022, FIRE ranked Yale near the bottom in free speech, a lowly 198th out of 203 colleges.  Yet the university has more applicants than ever, and parents are more desperate than ever to do whatever it takes to get their children into Yale and other Ivy League schools, as was seen in the tuition bribery case of a couple of years ago.  Once admitted, students run little risk of not getting good grades and not graduating.  And after graduation, they are almost certain to have a life of privilege, power, and wealth.

This Halloween incident is just one of many examples in the book of the tactics of the cultural revolutionaries, not only the revolutionaries in academia but also the ones in media and industry.

The authors advise on how to fight the cancel culture constructively and how to deal with ad hominem attacks without resorting to the same tactics in self-defense.

I agree with the advice and have followed a similar strategy for years.  But I’m not optimistic that it will change anything, given that two generations of Americans have been steeped in the precepts of the cultural revolution, and that the thinking permeates just about every American institution.

The revolution will have to run its course until the revolutionaries get devoured by the political monster they’ve created.

Look on the bright side:  It took only ten years for China’s Cultural Revolution to end. On the other hand, it took 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse and end the Bolshevik Revolution.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

How Many Judges Does It Take To Define ‘Woman’? thumbnail

How Many Judges Does It Take To Define ‘Woman’?

By May Mailman

Today’s most pressing women’s rights issue is not abortion. It’s not equal pay, domestic violence, or child care. It’s whether society is willing to recognize “women” at all. Without this basic understanding, there can be no “women’s” interest demanding or deserving of protection.

That’s why the Independent Women’s Law Center is representing six Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters at the University of Wyoming in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit alleges that Kappa’s national leadership ran roughshod over the sorority’s bylaws to provide membership to a biological male: a 260-pound, 21-year-old individual with a 1.9 GPA (well below the sorority’s 2.7 cutoff) who discussed his “desire to be near cadavers and to touch dead bodies” during the recruitment process. The sisters say they were forced to vote publicly and informed that a “no” vote would be a sign of bigotry and a basis for expulsion. Since joining, the male member has taken unwanted pictures of the women, asked them to describe their vaginas, and watched the girls undress.

Time and again we see injustices like what happened to these sorority sisters egged on by elitists who congratulate themselves for such devout commitment to diversity and inclusion, having already reaped the benefits of single-sex living years ago. But despite their professed commitment to inclusion, by pretending that “women” include biological males, they in fact deprive women of the say they are owed. That sounds pretty exclusionary to me.

Sadly, the district court ruled in favor of Kappa leadership. In the process, it stripped the organization’s bylaws of any meaning. “Woman,” the court said, is “undefined,” and cannot be constrained by the “circumscribed definition Plaintiffs urge.” “Woman” might mean anyone who claims to be a woman, at least according to a federal court.

Of course, this is nonsensical from a basic definitional perspective. Identifying oneself as a “woman” still requires an underlying definition of “woman.” Self-identification can never provide a definition since it has no boundaries on its own. Even an inanimate object like my iPhone can “identify” as a woman, but it’s still an iPhone.

Dissolving “woman” into an unknowable void is more than senseless, it’s extraordinarily consequential.

For one, it wrecks our ability to use language. We rely on contracts for countless purposes. If I order a shirt but receive pants, I can point to language in the contract to fix the issue. And if the supplier won’t fix it, I can take my issue to court. Interpreting contracts—including, for example, bylaws—is a quintessential duty of judging. Where activists dismantle language and threaten social consequences for those who apply ordinary meaning, we lose more than common sense. We lose the ability to function as a society.

And if that were not important enough, there’s more: the truth.

Women exist, as biologically distinct from men. And single-sex spaces are beneficial to women. That includes domestic abuse shelters, given that, on average, more than three women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends per day. It also includes sex-specific sports. After all, thousands of high-school boys can outpace star female Olympians and biological males can severely injure women on the field, as we learn again and again. And it also includes single-sex social and scholastic organizations. As Kappa itself has argued in court, “the benefits of having participated in a single-sex environment persist even after the woman has graduated or otherwise left the environment.”

Women’s organizations are worth preserving.

The fight won’t be easy. Kappa alumnae have already been kicked out for the mere act of speaking the truth. Sorority women have experienced a smear campaign, and have been accused of inventing sexual misconduct and even instigating murder.

But these women are not deterred. Women have fought for suffrage, property rights, education, and protection from violence. We are more than willing to fight for our existence and for the truth.

*****

This article was published by the Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Iowa Universities Told to Pull Back DEI Functions thumbnail

Iowa Universities Told to Pull Back DEI Functions

By Kim Jarrett

Editors Note: We think this is a good start, but it does not go far enough. We would hope in Arizona the Board of Regents and the legislature would call for the elimination of all DEI programs. Students should be admitted and teaching positions should be filled on the basis of merit, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the person involved. The way to stop racial discrimination is to quit using racial discrimination as a policy. Where taxpayer money is involved, DEI should be eliminated.

The Iowa Board of Regents called for the state’s three public universities to review the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, also known as DEI, and eliminate functions unnecessary for compliance or accreditation.

The vote came after Regent David Barker presented a report to the board from a three-member task force formed in March that included feedback from students, faculty, DEI administrators, and others.

David Barker said the University of Iowa, Iowa State, and the University of Northern Iowa are examples of diversity.

“The combined percentage of students that are members of minority racial groups is more than double that of the population of Iowa and our minority graduation rates, including for African American students, are higher than average,” Barker said.

The Iowa Legislature passed Senate File 560 earlier this year that directed the Board of Regents to review DEI policies in the universities.

The recommendations adopted by the board also require universities to take reasonable steps to ensure “no employee, student, applicant, or campus visitor is compelled to disclose their pronouns.”

The universities must also “explore a proposal, including cost, to establish a widespread initiative that includes opportunities for education and research on free speech and civic education.”

The policy could be a model for other states. Rep. Alex Dallman said in a social media post he thinks the Wisconsin Board of Regents should enact the policy.

“The DEI study group looked at programs and efforts by the universities in Iowa surrounding DEI,” Dallman said. “Included in their recommendations is eliminating unnecessary DEI related positions and responsibilities as well as eliminating DEI specific operations and services at their state-funded universities.”

*****

This article was published by Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Israel Is Prepared To Act Alone in Gaza, as a Rift Opens Between It and America thumbnail

Israel Is Prepared To Act Alone in Gaza, as a Rift Opens Between It and America

By The Geller Report

Israel still hasn’t learned that America under the Democrats only respects countries that betray, mock and work feverishly against us like Iran (Death to America!) and the Palestinians terror groups  The more you oppose us, the more billions come your way. If you respect and admire America (like Israel does), the Biden regime is going to stab you hard in the back.

Israel must go it alone and end this infernal ceasefire.

Jewish state will do what it has to in an existential struggle, even if it is abandoned by its most important

By: Benny Avni, NY Sun, November 28, 2023:

A rift is growing between America and Israel over how to proceed the day after the current pause in Gaza fighting ends, as Washington attempts to micromanage the war conduct.

With a two-day extension of the original ceasefire that was scheduled to end Tuesday, intelligence chiefs from America, Israel, Egypt, and Qatar are meeting at Doha to contemplate further hostage releases. Israel has initially agreed to a maximum of a 10-day war pause if at least 10 hostages are released daily.

Ten Israeli women and two Thais were released Tuesday. At least eight children remain in Gaza, including 10-months-old Kfir Bibas, who has become a symbol of Hamas’s cruelty. Also, at least nine Americans are yet to be freed.

Meanwhile the Israel Defense Force is readying an invasion of southern Gaza, to where Hamas elite leaders escaped after the IDF captured Gaza City and most of the north. Washington, though, is urging a change in war tactics. Pressured by the Democratic left, President Biden increasingly seems more concerned about the humanitarian plight in Gaza than eliminating Hamas.

Meanwhile, Hamas is already violating the ceasefire. On Tuesday, three explosive devices were detonated next to IDF positions in northern Gaza, followed by gunshots. Three soldiers were lightly wounded. “The response needs to be disproportional, so we don’t play by Hamas rules,” a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Zvi Hauser, told Israel Channel 11 television.

Mr. Netanyahu’s government, though, seemed to be in full diplomatic mode. The Mossad chief, David Barnea, and his American counterpart, William Burns of the Central Intelligence Agency, were at Doha Tuesday to negotiate further military pauses for hostage releases. According to the Washington Post, Mr. Burns is seeking a “longer, multi-day pause,” beyond even the Israeli 10-day cap.

Israel seems willing to let negotiations play out as long as hostages are freed. “To date, we got 74 abductees released, including 50 children and women that were included in the first phase of the agreement,” Mr. Netanyahu said Tuesday. “We will complete this phase when all women and children are released — and then everyone else.”

Qatar, which serves as a Hamas proxy in the talks, is reportedly seeking an agreement to release all hostages held in Gaza in return for top Hamas terrorists held in Israeli prisons, including those who have committed deadly acts. Most importantly for Hamas, such a pact would entail a durable ceasefire and end of war.

Such a deal is opposed by the Israeli government. “Gaza would not remain what it was before, and would no longer threaten Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu said. A senior cabinet member, Benny Gantz, told reporters Tuesday that once the current ceasefire ends, “fire will resume. We are ready for the next stages in the war all over Gaza. There would be no place of refuge for terrorists and Hamas leaders.”

Washington, though, is warning Israel to avoid “significant further displacement” of civilians in the south, senior officials told reporters this week.

Continue reading.

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

Biden is the primary obstacle to Israeli victory thumbnail

Biden is the primary obstacle to Israeli victory

By Center For Security Policy

The time has come to discuss the Biden administration’s relationship with Israel. With each passing day, two things become obvious. First, Israel cannot fight the war without U.S. resupply of the Israel Defense Forces. As a consequence, Israel is beholden to the administration’s directives. And second, if Israel follows the Biden administration’s directives, it will lose the war.

Israel’s dependence on the United States was stated bluntly by retired IDF Maj. General Yitzhak Brick in an interview earlier this week.

“All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability. … Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

Brick went on to explain that President Joe Biden’s demand that Israel permit “humanitarian aid” to enter Gaza means that he is demanding that Israel keep Hamas fully supplied with food, water and fuel.

His demand that Israel minimize Palestinian civilian casualties endangers IDF soldiers and renders the expansion of the ground offensive into central and southern Gaza, where the bulk of Hamas’s force is now located, almost impossible to carry out. Brick suggested various forms of long-term tunnel warfare and other suggestions for how the IDF may be able to defeat Hamas over time while operating within the constraints that Biden and his top advisors are dictating.

It is hard to judge whether Brick’s suggestions are workable without access to situational intelligence about conditions on the ground in southern Gaza. At a minimum, it is clear that Biden’s preference for the lives of civilians in Gaza over the lives of IDF soldiers on the ground ensures that far more soldiers will be killed in the fighting than would otherwise. Three weeks ago, the administration began demanding that Israel limit (or cancel entirely) its pre-ground battle aerial bombings. Consequently, in the week that preceded this week’s “humanitarian pause,” the IDF’s battle losses were overwhelmingly the consequence of sniper fire from Hamas terrorists hiding in buildings that the air force did not destroy before the battles, due to U.S. pressure.

Then there is the issue of the hostages. Israel is duty-bound to the hostages, their families and Israeli society as a whole to rescue them. There are two ways to do this. Israel can bow to Hamas’s demands, as it is presently doing by suspending its offensive, and endangering Israel’s soldiers and civilians by permitting Hamas to rebuild and reorganize its forces, and by releasing terrorists from its prisons and retuning them to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Or it can renew its military operation, locate the hostages and rescue them itself. Clearly, the second option is preferable.

Securing aid from America

Until Monday, it appeared the reason that Israel had accepted the deal it is currently operating under owed to its inability to locate the hostages. The London-based Daily Express reported on Monday that the real reason Israel is not rescuing the hostages—and instead agreed to the current deal with all of its tactical and strategic costs—is related to the Biden administration’s directive not to harm Palestinian civilians.

Based on Israeli sources, the British Daily Express reported that Israel knows where many of the hostages are located. It has opted not to rescue them because Hamas is holding the hostages among civilians. Rescuing them would involve collateral damage to those Palestinians and risk U.S. resupply, which Israel cannot fight without.

Here it is important to note that the number of actual civilians that have died as a result of Israel’s bombings remains unknown. On Oct. 25, Biden acknowledged that the Gaza Health Ministry’s data on civilian casualties lacks credibility in light of the fact that the Health Ministry is simply an organ of Hamas and reports the numbers it is told to report by Hamas’s terror masters. That data counts every dead terrorist as a dead civilian.

Israelis were thrilled with Biden’s statement. But the next day, he apologized for it. According to Fox News, in a meeting with Muslim American leaders on Oct. 26, Biden apologized for telling the truth.

“I’m sorry. I’m disappointed with myself,” he said.

Since Oct. 26, the administration has embraced as fact Hamas’s casualty counts and uses them as the basis for its demand that Israel minimize Palestinian casualties. The administration’s willingness to ignore the fallacies at the heart of those data indicates that its policy is based on something other than concern for Palestinian civilians, and therefore is not a tactical challenge that Israel may be capable of contending with and still win.

To be sure, Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have all expressed their solidarity with Israel, as well as their revulsion at Hamas’s actions and desire to see the genocidal jihadist terror group defeated. And to be sure, Biden has taken steps to resupply Israel—requesting $14.3 billion in military supplies to Israel (although the assistance has yet to be approved by Congress or signed into law by Biden). These positions and at least partial actions lend credence to Brick’s assessment, shared by the IDF and the government, that the challenge the Biden administration’s position on civilian casualties in Gaza is an operational or tactical challenge and not a strategic conundrum.

Dealing with Fatah and the P.A.<

But there are additional indications that Biden doesn’t want Israel to win. First, there is the issue of Egypt. Due to the U.S. decision to support Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s determination to prevent Gazans from fleeing to Egypt or to a third country through Egypt, the million or so Gazans who evacuated the northern end of the Strip during the fighting are now concentrated in the south. Among them are the bulk of Hamas’s forces, which Israel must destroy to win the war. Facing the U.S.-backed Egyptian refusal to permit these civilians to leave Gaza on the one hand and the U.S. directive to keep civilian casualties close to zero on the other, Israel is facing an impossible operational challenge. Brick may be right that a low-key, slow offensive would be capable of achieving the goal. But he may be wrong. Certainly, a more conventional operation would have a much higher chance of succeeding.

To this must be added the Biden administration’s demands for a post-war settlement. Israel’s goal is not only to defeat Hamas now but to prevent it from rebuilding and to prevent other terror groups from emerging in a post-war Gaza. To this end, at a minimum, Israel will be required to take two actions. First, it must retain permanent military control over all of Gaza. Second, Israel must seize a buffer zone several kilometers wide on the Gaza side of the border to protect civilian communities and military bases from a repeat of Oct. 7.

Biden and his advisers oppose both of these goals. Not only do they completely oppose Israeli military control over Gaza and the establishment of buffer zones inside Gaza, they demand that in a post-war settlement, Israel end its maritime blockade of the Gaza coast, and permit everything and anything to enter Gaza from the sea. In other words, the U.S. position is to permit terrorist forces whether they call themselves Hamas or anything else—to rebuild their capabilities unfettered in post-war Gaza.

Even worse, the administration’s position is that Gaza must be ruled by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority after the war has ended, and that Gaza be united with Judea and Samaria in a post-war era, and together receive full sovereignty. In other words, the administration’s war goal is to establish a Fatah-dominated Palestinian state in these areas. On its own, this position is antithetical not only to an Israeli victory in the war. It represents an existential threat to Israel’s continued existence. Fatah—and the P.A. it runs—is a terrorist organization and regime. The P.A.’s U.S.-armed and funded security forces are Hamas’s junior partners in terror. As Eugene Kontorovich and Itamar Marcus reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, P.A.-controlled Fatah terrorists from Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group posted videos of its members in Gaza participating in Hamas’s Oct. 7 slaughter. Fatah terrorists killed, tortured and kidnapped Israelis, and took videos of their actions.

Unlike Gaza, Judea and Samaria are a stone’s throw from all of Israel’s major population centers, and half a million Israelis live in cities and villages throughout Judea and Samaria. Last Friday night, the threat posed by Palestinian terrorist and paramilitary forces in Judea and Samaria to the lives of millions of Israelis came into sharp relief with the public lynching in the city of Tulkarm of two Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israeli counter-terror operations. To the roars of a crowd of thousands—secured by P.A. security forces—Hamas publicly hanged the two men from an electricity tower. The two men’s bodies showed signs of brutal torture that preceded their execution. Tulkarm is controlled by the P.A. It is located less than a kilometer from the Cross Israel Highway and a few minutes’ drive to Kfar Yona and Netanya.

Israel’s dependence on U.S. weapons makes it impossible for the Netanyahu government to publicly air the strategic threat the administration’s policies pose to its war effort and its long-term ability to survive in the post-Oct. 7 Middle East. Israel cannot risk additional stress to its position vis-à-vis the Biden administration and wants to avoid exposing the rift to its enemies already emboldened from Gaza to Lebanon, Yemen to Iran.

Congressional lawmakers face no such constraints, however. Moreover, they have an interest in exposing the truth and working to compel a change in the administration’s Hamas-enabling policies. Polling data shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel in this war and want it to destroy Hamas. The overwhelming majority of lawmakers from both parties share their views. To date, the Republican majority in the House has made no effort to exercise oversight over the Biden administration’s policies in relation to Israel’s war with Hamas, largely due to the Israeli government’s unwillingness to air the actual state of relations.

As the humanitarian pause is extended to secure the release of additional hostages and before the Christmas recess, House Republicans and like-minded Democrats should open hearings to compel the administration to explain its policies. Specifically, it should be asked to explain how Israel can defeat Hamas given the constraints the administration is placing on IDF operations. The administration should also be asked why it supports the P.A., given the P.A.’s involvement, support and defense of Hamas’s invasion of Israel, and the slaughter of its civilians on Oct. 7. Congress should also ensure that the aid package, when passed, contains no conditions on Israel’s use of the weapons it will receive.

Lawmakers must understand the source of the Israeli government’s fulsome praise for Biden. They should then take action to prevent the administration from maintaining its policy of paying lip service to an Israeli victory while preventing Israel from achieving one.

Originally published by Jewish News Syndicate

AUTHOR

Caroline Glick

Senior Fellow.

RELATED VIDEO: A decent description of Islam in under 2 minutes

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Lawmakers Have ‘Extremely Frank’ Conversation With IDF Over Its Counteroffensive In Gaza

‘We Can’t Ignore It Any More’: Former Israeli PM Spars With Jake Tapper Over Call To ‘Denazify Gaza’

UN Account Posts, Then Quickly Deletes Condemnation Of Hamas

‘Blank Check Approach Must End’: Dem Lawmakers Call For Conditions On Aid To Israel

White House Surges Aid Into Gaza As Pause In Israel-Hamas War Extends

City Council Meeting Erupts Into Chaos As Oakland Residents Loudly Object To Condemning Hamas

Genocidal Hatred of Jews and the West

The Land that Israel Never Stole

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Meet The Senior CIA Official Caught Posting Pro-Palestinian Content On Social Media thumbnail

Meet The Senior CIA Official Caught Posting Pro-Palestinian Content On Social Media

By The Daily Caller

The top CIA official who changed her social media cover photo to a pro-Palestinian image two weeks after the Hamas terrorist organization carried out attacks on Israel is Associate Deputy Director for Analysis Amy McFadden, the Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

The original Oct. 21 photo of a man waving a Palestinian flag — often used in articles critical of Israel — is no longer publicly visible on the official’s social media, as the official, the associate deputy director for analysis at the CIA, changed the image after the Financial Times reached out Monday, the outlet reported. The DCNF identified the official as Amy McFadden, who has served in the CIA Directorate of Analysis front office since 2020, according to her LinkedIn profile.

McFadden worked in the CIA’s Counterterrorism center, 

“The officer is a career analyst with extensive background in all aspects of the Middle East and this post [of the Palestinian flag] was not intended to express a position on the conflict,” a person familiar with the situation told the FT. The person added that the official also posted Facebook posts opposing antisemitism.

The official previously oversaw the assembly of the President’s Daily Briefing and is jointly responsible for managing all analysis distributed within the CIA, the FT reported.

After the FT reached out, the official deleted pro-Palestinian content from her Facebook page going back a year and a half, the FT reported.

In a separate post, the official also posted a photo with the words “Free Palestine” overlaid on the image, the FT reported, though this image was reportedly posted years ago.

“CIA officers are committed to analytic objectivity, which is at the core of what we do as an Agency. CIA officers may have personal views, but this does not lessen their – or CIA’s – commitment to unbiased analysis,” a CIA spokesperson told the DCNF.

McFadden did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s outreach.

Biden’s antisemitism envoy will go in public to repeat Hamas casualty numbers, but behind the scenes is ignoring outreach from at least one Jewish organization that spoke to @DailyCaller.

More here:https://t.co/lmqnS9fjMq

— Reagan Reese (@reaganreese_) November 28, 2023

Former intelligence officials said the posts were unusual and expressed surprise that an official in a sensitive position would publicly post views on a charged issue contrary to the Biden administration’s overt support for Israel.

“The public posting of an obviously controversial political statement by a senior analytic manager in the middle of a crisis shows glaringly poor judgment,” one former intelligence official told the FT, adding that some intelligence community members were alarmed that the official’s public stance could undermine perceptions of objectivity in CIA.

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Investigative reporter, defense.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CIA Director Lands In Qatar For Secret Talks With Israeli Intelligence Over Additional Hostage Releases

Explosive Report: US and UK Military Contractors Launched Initial Censorship Group that Later Morphed into the Censorship Industrial Complex After 2016 Trump Election

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


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

Patriot Party Fails To Qualify For 2024 Ballot thumbnail

Patriot Party Fails To Qualify For 2024 Ballot

By Daniel Stefanski

Editors’ Note: This article is an important warning for every Arizona citizen concerned about election integrity. Secretary of State (SOS) Adrian Fontes has a long history of rabid partisanship as an elected official in offices that should be nonpartisan. As Maricopa County Recorder until 2021, Fontes ran aggressive voter registration drives in mostly Democrat areas utilizing his large office staff to conduct these activities inappropriately and against the regulations of his office. The Arizona Supreme Court has repeatedly stopped his election manipulation attempts to revise the Elections Procedure Manual and other inappropriate and Democrat-assisting maneuvers  in his prior Maricopa County Recorder office and currently as Secretary of State. He is a partisan hack and a reason to fear the integrity of the approaching 2024 election here in Arizona. In 2020, The Prickly Pear interviewed Stephen Richer, the current Maricopa County Recorder who beat Fontes in the 2020 election. Richer stated in the interview that Fontes, the incumbent Recorder and his opponent, was incompetent and guilty of criminal behavior in the conduct of the office. Remarkably, Fontes is now the Secretary of State after the 2022 Arizona election that resulted in many ongoing questions and concerns about competence of Arizona elections. As SOS, Fontes has a critical role in Arizona’s election processes. He threatens the integrity and outcomes of the 2024 election and future elections by the clear partisan use of his office in multiple ways. The article below is the most recent example.

The Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP) gained a significant victory this week over Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

On Monday, the AZGOP announced that the ‘Patriot Party’ “failed to secure enough valid signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot,” crediting the “unwavering dedication of over 50 volunteers who…meticulously reviewed over 37,000 signatures by hand.”

This update came days after the Party had issued a press release to accuse Fontes of “misusing his office to influence elections.”

In that communication, the AZGOP explained that the “Liberal Democrat Adrian Fontes quietly and drastically changed his procedures on political party petition filings and denied observer access and public records requests by the Arizona Republican Party.” According to the AZGOP, this occurred when Secretary Fontes allegedly failed “to notify the political parties with ballot access that an appointment had been made by the ‘Patriot Party’ to file signatures on their Petition for Political Party recognition.”

In their release, the AZGOP asserted that Fontes’ actions with the ‘Patriot Party’ filing was “a big departure from what (he) did when ‘No Labels’ filed,” adding that the Secretary’s motivation in running his office is “to help the Democrat Party and hamper (Arizona Republicans).”

The AZGOP outlined the process by which Secretary Fontes “conducted the No Labels filing,” which included the following steps:

  • The Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian parties of Arizona were informed about the filing appointment ahead of time.
  • All three recognized political parties were permitted to have observers present for the entire intake and SOS scanning of petitions with full observer coverage for chain of custody transition.
  • The scans of the petitions, as filed, prior to SOS processing, were made available the morning after filing through a secure fileshare provided by SOS.
  • The fileshare to which counties upload their processed samples was made available to all recognized political parties so that they could follow the filing process throughout.

As the release concluded, the AZGOP demanded that Secretary Fontes “restore the long history of impartiality that existed in the SOS’s office under Secretary Reagan, Secretary Bennett, Secretary Brewer and others.” The party asked for the Secretary of State’s Office to “fulfill (their) public records requests in a timely manner and maintain a fair and unbiased process for all filings made in (the) office.”

The AZGOP threatened Fontes with litigation if he were to “move to validate (the ‘Patriot Party’) as (an actual party) regardless in a partisan effort to hamper the Republican Party. That threat appears to be neutralized thanks to the State Republican Party’s hard work to go through the signatures itself.

With the saga of the petition signatures moving to the rearview window, the AZGOP is focusing on an extremely important election season in 2024, boasting of a “grassroots army of over 5,500 precinct committeemen in Arizona, combined with an additional 20,000 party volunteers.” The AZGOP noted that Arizona Republicans are “united in our mission to register more voters, champion family values, strengthen the economy, and advocate for better educational outcomes and parental choice.”

*****

This article was published in AZ Free News and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Target’s Latest Trans Mania Is Asking For More Boycotts, And Customers Should Deliver thumbnail

Target’s Latest Trans Mania Is Asking For More Boycotts, And Customers Should Deliver

By Shawn Fleetwood

As if partnering with a Satanist to design “pride” month merchandise wasn’t bad enough, Target is back this holiday season to force its latest batch of LGBT-themed Christmas products on its customer base.

Last week, it was revealed that Target is selling a variety of “rainbow”-themed Christmas decorations this year, ranging from nutcrackers holding the “progress” and LGBT flags to black disabled Santa ornaments. The retail giant is also merchandising LGBT-themed snow globes and wrapping paper.

The store has sold “pride”-themed nutcrackers during the Christmas season as early as 2021. But dumping its “rainbow” products onto shoppers this December is just the tip of the iceberg for Target, which apparently failed to learn from major revenue drops that plagued the retailer after alienating customers in June. The retail chain is also elevating individuals promoting the left’s radical LGBT agenda to significant positions within the company.

Among these figures appears to be Erik Thompson, who announced his partnership with Target on Instagram earlier this month as the store’s new “Senior LGBTQIA+ Segmentation Strategist and Pride Lead.” Thompson, who goes by “he/him/his/her” pronouns and uses the Instagram handle “gaycruella,” said he was “[h]onored to get to start a new body of work” and spearhead “Target’s LGBTQIA+ multicultural merchandising strategy and Pride businesses for the company and the LGBTQIA+ & Allied communities across the the [sic] nation.”

“Time to whip out the Glitter & Hellfire flamethrowers and rip that old world to shreds darlings,” Thompson wrote. “Let’s flip that script and rewrite that narrative. This time for ~ALL Guests, ALL Humans & ALL Hearts.”

Target’s attempt to trade Christmas’ green and red colors for rainbow ones isn’t all that surprising, given the company’s decision to sell and promote LGBT-themed merchandise earlier this year, including “light binding effect” swim tops and “tuck-friendly” bottoms as well as pride-themed merchandise for infants and toddlers. The retailer also teamed up with a self-proclaimed “gay trans man” and Satan supporter to “supply transgender-themed merchandise” to its 2023 “pride” collection.

Target has since experienced massive financial losses as a result of its embrace of radical gender ideology. According to The Daily Wire, Target’s third-quarter sales “tumbled 4.9% following a 5.4% decline in the second quarter,” which had been the company’s “first quarterly sales drop in six years.”

The Boycotts Must Continue Until Morale Improves

Don’t let its kid-friendly dog mascot fool you. Target is just as radically left-wing as once-great corporations like The Walt Disney Company have become. It has decided to cast aside its traditional customer base in favor of the latest leftist fad — even if that “fad” does irreparable harm to innocent and unsuspecting children.

[RELATED: It’s Up To Moms To Crush Target]

Until Target stops pushing this demonic paganism on the public (especially minors) and apologizes, there is zero reason sane Americans should continue to reward the retailer with a single penny. Target deserves the same economic pain that Disney and Anheuser-Busch received after those companies shamelessly foisted the trans agenda on their loyal customer base.

People who shop at Target should be treated the same way as people who drink Bud Light. Mock them. Ridicule them. Make them answer for subsidizing a company that’s apparently fine with castrating young boys and chest-binding little girls. Use the left’s tactics against them without a second thought.

Conservatives didn’t choose this culture war. But it’s incumbent upon all of us to fight it.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Too Many Laws thumbnail

Too Many Laws

By Bruce Bialosky

There are many joys of being a Californian. The price of housing, the price of gas, and the price of electricity are just a few. One that is not discussed is how our elected leaders are constantly changing the laws under which we are governed.  This is one of the worst aspects of our “independent press” which barely discusses the matter. 

It has become customary for California’s full-time legislature to justify their collective existence by feeling compelled to propose a laundry list of new bills to become law.  Each member can submit fifty bills in every two-year session. With 120 members, there could be 6,000 bills every session or 3,000 bills annually. It seems that each member attempts to make that “quota.”

The number gets whittled down, but not by much. The amount of bills passed is significant: 2021 – 965 bills; 2022-998; 2023-1046. The Governor gets a hack at them once passed by the Assembly and State Senate, but maybe “hack” is not an appropriate verb here.

In the first year of the session, he has 12 days from passing of the bills to sign them into law or veto them.  In year two, the governor has 30 days. Newsom signed into law: 2021-890, 2022 – 979, 2023 – 890. A total of 3,009 bills passed in the last three years and Governor Newsom signed 2,759 into law. That is 91.7%, and that is just since 2021.

How do you run a state like this?  There becomes a law dysphoria.  Residents don’t know what is legal and what is not.  While the legislators think they are improving our lives they are making everyone less settled as to the government that controls them. 

This deluge of changes to the law and the following of the laws – for those of us who are still law-abiding citizens – is something nobody talks about. While the press was addressing whether the Governor was going to sign or veto the most visible bills, I addressed the issue of the sheer number to Politico. Their daily California summary focused only on which bills they considered newsworthy.  “Are you interested in addressing the mass amount of bills passed?”  Silence.

A perfect example is the column by George Skelton of the LA Times, one of the deans of columnists covering Sacramento.  His column here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-23/skelton-column applauds Newsom for vetoing bills that would have expanded the budget even further.  Skelton, like all the others, does not address the huge cost to California residents of the 890 bills that were signed into law and the regulations they produced. 

What did the press bother to cover? The State Superintendent of Public Instruction was charged with racism because our schools were disproportionately disciplining students of color.  The Superintendent does not look like someone with an axe to grind against people of color as he is black.  Wait a minute; the Legislature changed the law on that one.

State Senator Nancy Skinner was behind Senate Bill 274 to end the suspension of students for willful defiance in classrooms.  She stated, “Since my start in the state Senate in 2016, I’ve worked to end willful defiance suspensions in our public schools.”  Notably, she hasn’t done anything in classrooms to actually end willful defiance.  That means teachers now have little means of controlling their unruly students. Maybe next session Senator Skinner can do something about that.

This is just one of the many laws that were barely covered.  Some are not covered at all.  Thus, businesses or individuals remain ignorant about the new laws to which they are subject and can get trapped by not knowing.

Swooping to the rescue are the people who are the second largest group (first are public employee unions) to whom these elected officials are beholden – lawyers.  They create little cottage industries to protect innocent people from even further harm.  Adding insult to injury, not only must you relearn how things operate, but you must pay homage to lawyers keeping you from fines and recriminations.

A friend who works in D.C. sent me a marketing piece from a national employment law firm.  They had twelve California laws they cited as being changed in this last session. If you are running a business with employees, you are clearly sunk if you don’t have one of these hired guns to protect you from your own elected officials. It is certainly possible you need these legal eagles since there are another 878 passed bills that could get you in a world of trouble for not following the new laws.

Readers always like to hear solutions, not just complaints. Numero Uno is to stop electing these self-designated potentates.  These are people who think they were elected to micromanage your life because they know better.

That is the problem here – most Californians are unaware of this situation.  Trying to get a replacement (new Assembly or Senate member) is a behemoth challenge.  Plus, if the replacement is not beholden to the public employee unions and the lawyers it will be ever so much tougher.

You can speak to the official’s office. But since they don’t care (because they don’t have to) that is typically a waste of time.

The solution that more people and businesses are trying – is relocation.

*****

This article was published by FlashReport and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Elon Musk Visits Hamas Attack Sites in Israel thumbnail

Elon Musk Visits Hamas Attack Sites in Israel

By Dr. Rich Swier

“It was troubling to see the joy experienced by the people that were killing innocent civilians including kids and babies and defenseless people essentially…It’s another thing to revel in the joy of killing civilians.” — Elon Musk.


If there ever was a defining moment in history it was October 7th, 2023—a date that will live in infamy.

There have been those who have been warning Americans, and the world, about what Islam truly wants—us all dead!

When any Muslim shouts “death to America” it isn’t merely a chant its their sworn religious duty and their personal, and in Muslim majority nations, a public policy to carry out this death threat.

When a Muslim shouts “Allah Akbar” they are dedicating themselves to martyrdom  with the goal to kill or convert every infidel in the world in the name of Allah.

Below are the comments made by Elon Musk after witnessing the videos of the October 7th attacks in Israel by Hamas.

Elon Musk on X Spaces reflecting on his experience in Israel:

“It was troubling to see the joy experienced by the people that were killing innocent civilians including kids and babies and defenseless people essentially…It’s another thing to revel in the joy of killing… pic.twitter.com/t2NVI6tEEo

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 27, 2023

What Islam Truly Wants

Perhaps two of the most defining videos produced on the goals of Islam are Geert Wilders’ 2009 film “FITNA” and the 2007 Clarion Project’s film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

Watch what they say. What they truly believe. But most importantly watch what they do!

The current war in Gaza against the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist organization Hamas is just the tip of the Islamic iceberg.

This is a global jihad, a war against all non-believers in Mohammed. It is a war that one side, and only one side, will win!

We are now seeing those who support Hamas’ slaughter of innocents on the streets of Berlin, London, Amsterdam, Melbourne and New York City.

They are emboldened and the jihadists will not stop, ever.

WATCH: OBSESSION: Radical Islam’s War Against the West

WATCH: FITNA – Geert Wilders’ Unedited Film

WATCH: ‘Globalize the Intifada: Mapping Project 2023

Please watch the AfD co-founder, Alice Weidel interview on Islam and Germany’s future.

THE BOTTOM LINE

After watching the above videos these are the key takeaways:

  1. There never was a palestinian state nor a palestinian people. Up to 133 AD the land was named Judea, the homeland of the Jewish people. In 134 AD the Romans, after defeating the last Jewish uprising, as an affront to the Jewish people they took the name of the ancient enemies of the Jews, the Philistines, from the Torah and renamed Judea palestine.
  2. It was the Soviet KGB in concert with PLO leader Yassir Arafat who in the 1960s came up with a propaganda campaign to create palestine. Up until that time Israel was beloved because it was the “underdog” facing the existential threat of 22 Arab nations surrounding it. The KGB deduced that the world needed a new underdog, hence they created the myth of a palestinian people and a state of palestine.
  3. Hamas is the bastard child of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is funded by the current administration, the United Nations, Iran, and others.
  4. Islam is not, and never has been a religion of peace. Rather it is bent on jihad, a never ending war against the infidels.
  5. The free world has been infiltrated by migrants from Muslim majority nations. It is this Muslim migration that is now causing all of the violence in the world.
  6. The only way to stop the jihad is to fight the jihad, just as we fought the former Soviet Union and won.
  7. Losing is not an option.

Remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Stop the slaughter before it is to late.

Remember when President Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

We are now, in 2023, a generation of patriots who are fighting to keep our freedoms under our Constitutional Republic.

Pray that we are not the last generation!

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Elon Musk meets Netanyahu, notes obvious truth about difference between Israel and Hamas in casualty counts

POST ON X:

Don’t let Hamas fool you. pic.twitter.com/RRLrfL1n3Z

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) November 28, 2023

Biden apologizes to Muslim leaders in U.S. for questioning Hamas death toll thumbnail

Biden apologizes to Muslim leaders in U.S. for questioning Hamas death toll

By Jihad Watch

Why would anyone expect truth from a people who indoctrinate their children to hate and murder Israelis, spread lies including blood libels, celebrate “martyrdom” and use human shields? The nature of jihad war was revealed on October 7. Jihad is savage, and marked by deceit. The deceit is the hallmark of the stealth jihad, which skillfully employs propaganda.

Taqiyya (dissimulation) is an encouraged practice in Islam, backed by a Qur’anic verse:

And they [the disbelievers] schemed, and Allah schemed: and Allah is the best of schemers.  Quran 3:54

As accurately stated about Palestinian culture by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak:

“They are products of a culture in which to tell a lie… creates no dissonance….They don’t suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture….Truth is seen as an irrelevant category……There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn’t. They see themselves as emissaries of a national movement for whom everything is permissible. There is no such thing as ‘the truth’.”

Yet despite copious evidence regarding the Palestinian zeal for the “resistance” no matter what, Biden is still groveling to Muslims. He’s likely trying to salvage a prior vow he made to serve Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in exchange for their votes. Biden still faces the stark truth, as other Western leaders do: that Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have offshoots all over America and other Western countries.

Biden offers apology to Muslim-American leaders for questioning Hamas death toll: report

by Stepheny Price, Fox News, November 26, 2023:

President Biden reportedly issued an apology to several prominent Muslim-American leaders after openly questioning the accuracy of the death toll figures from Gaza.

During a press conference on Oct. 25, President Biden openly questioned the number of causalities in Gaza, which are reported by the Hamas government.

“I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed,” Biden said. “I’m sure innocents have been killed, and it’s a price of waging war.”

Biden met with five Muslim American leaders the day after his Oct. 25 comments about reported Gaza deaths.

During the meeting, Biden listened to the leaders describe people they knew who were directly impacted by the conflict in the Middle East.

“I’m sorry. I’m disappointed in myself,” Biden told the group, according to the Washington Post.

The Muslim-American leaders who met with Biden urged him to show more empathy to the Palestinians and Biden allegedly hugged one of the participants at the end of the meeting….

Read more

AUTHOR

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elon Musk meets Netanyahu, notes obvious truth about difference between Israel and Hamas in casualty counts

USC Professor Denounces Hamas, Now He’s On Administrative Leave 

Another woke leftist discovers the glories of the Qur’an

UK: Labour councillor resigns under pressure after sharing anti-Hamas article

British Taxpayers Supporting Left-Wing Publisher That Praises Hamas

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©2023. All rights reserved.

Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine thumbnail

Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

By Family Research Council

In August of 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made the COVID vaccination shot a requirement for all U.S. servicemembers. President Joe Biden released a statement revealing his strong support before it went into effect. As a result, Politico reported that over “8,400 troops were kicked out of the military for refusing the vaccine.” About a year later, Biden signed a defense bill that repealed the vaccine mandate.

This month, news broke that the Army has sent letters to many of the troops who were ousted, which explains that soldiers can correct their records and reenter the service. The reversal has been met with tremendous backlash.

Retired Army Major Chase Spears wrote about the mistreatment servicemembers faced while the vaccine mandate was in effect. He shared, “The Army requires several immunizations and checkups throughout the year to maintain one’s medical readiness. Not one of those came with the coercive force of the COVID mandate. … It became the primary marker of human worth.” For Spears, the Army officials who heavily enforced the mandate seem to have no remorse for their actions. He added, “Hearkening back to biblical language, you were clean or unclean based on your shot status.”

Spears described the policy reversal as “a step toward sanity,” but concluded “it is far from enough.” “The question is whether those who made such un-American policy decisions can be trusted going forward.” He believes they cannot. Those affected by the military’s course of action have insisted this is a matter of trust and warn the military is about to get a wake-up call from the soldiers who no longer have confidence in the current leadership.

Many of the soldiers affected by the vaccine mandate were deprived of pay and benefits. According to Breitbart, retired attorney Dale Saran and attorneys Andy Meyer and Brandon Johnson are representing former troops who were kicked out “in three separate lawsuits they plan to turn into a class action lawsuit.” Saran estimated roughly “80,000 to 100,000 service members — both active-duty and reservists — who were impacted by the mandate.”

Mike Berry, vice president of External Affairs, director of Military Affairs, and senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, commented to The Washington Stand, “The only way an all-volunteer military works is with trust. But these past few years, the Pentagon has done nothing but shatter the trust of our servicemembers and veterans with lies, broken promises, and incompetence.” He explained that when First Liberty first “sued the Navy over its COVID vaccine mandate,” they warned them that the “unlawful manner in which the DOD was enforcing the mandate would result in a recruiting crisis.”

On Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Berry unpacked the mandate’s rollback more. As far as he’s concerned, the problem with the letter is that it “doesn’t say anything about accountability.” He added, “It’s not about accomplishing the mission. And in this case, it’s not about protecting religious freedom, which is one of the things that our military exists to do.” He concluded, “They know what this is all about. This is all about just trying to save face, trying to make sure that on paper, our military is meeting its recruiting and retention numbers.”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council and a Navy veteran, also commented to TWS, “The military never should have coerced its servicemembers to get the vaccine to begin with.” For Weber and all those witnessing the unfolding of the military’s actions, we “are dealing with the fallout as they try to woo back the thousands that they kicked out for refusing to violate their consciences and get the vaccine.”

Weber shared that it’s not surprising that servicemembers would be hesitant to return “to an institution that so easily thrust them aside in the face of public pressure” during COVID, which “the military bowed to along with much of the rest of society.” He concluded, “May this sad episode never be repeated, and may our nation’s military and civilian leadership be on guard to ensure they actually lead and not simply follow the blowing winds of public sentiment.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

72% Of Americans Won’t Volunteer to Fight for U.S. Military

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


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

What Is Racism? thumbnail

What Is Racism?

By Craig J. Cantoni

“Racism” is one of the many catchall words that are bandied about without definition or much thought.

Anyone with the temerity to question the meaning of “racism” or to ask for a definition of the word risks being called a racist.

Well, so be it.

Given that “racism” has become one of the most ubiquitous words, and given that someone can be canceled, fired, or even get into legal trouble for being accused of racism, it’s important to have a precise understanding of what the word means.

The same can be said of other popular words du jour, such as “white privilege,” “minority,” “person of color,” “marginalized,” and the six contrived racial and ethnic categories of “White,” “Black,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” “Pacific Islander,” and “Native American.”

Is this much ado about nothing?  Norman Wang wouldn’t think so.  After being accused of perpetuating racism, he lost his position as an associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.  He was in good company.  The American Heart Association was also accused of perpetuating racism.

Their offense?  Wang published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association, saying that affirmative action programs should meet legal requirements and that the admissions process should be race-neutral. (Source:  The Canceling of the American Mind.)

That was racism?  By what definition?  Certainly not by the following definition from the Oxford Dictionary.

racism:  prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

That’s a pretty good definition, even though it includes the ambiguous words “minority” and “marginalized.”  We’ll come back to those words later.  Suffice it to say for now that Wang didn’t exhibit prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a racial or ethnic group or person.

Unsurprisingly, I prefer my own definition of racism:

racism:the belief that a particular race or ethnic group is inherently inferior or deficient in some way, and to act on that belief.

I’ll use that definition to talk about my own race and ethnicity, in the hope that doing so will reduce the inevitable accusations of racism in writing about racism.

Under my definition, it is not racism for me to say that I dislike Italians who are members of the Sicilian Mafia, or to encourage law enforcement to keep an eye on Mafioso in the event they break the law, or to deny them employment if I were to own a business.  The reason that’s not racism is that my prejudice against Mafioso is based on the fact of their criminality and not on a racist belief that all Italians are genetically predisposed to criminality.

While it’s true that almost all Mafioso are Italian or Sicilian, it’s not true that all Italians are criminals. To say that almost all Mafioso are Italian is a racial fact, not racism.  Conversely, it is racism to say that all Italians are criminals.

As this example shows, the citing of unflattering racial facts is not necessarily an indication of racism.  Unfortunately, this distinction is rarely made today.  The citing of unflattering racial facts is seen as being synonymous with racism, unless the negatives are about so-called White people, or Asian people, who, more and more, are seen as White in values, advantages, and privilege.  These two groups are fair game for not only unflattering facts but also accusations of racism—not the racism defined by Oxford or me, but the racism described in a new definition.

Norman Wang lost his teaching position because of the new definition.  The definition goes like this:

racism:   a failure to support diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that are designed to address the fact that racism in the United States is systemic and institutionalized, due to the nation’s history of White people oppressing Blacks, indigenous people, and people of color, first through slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and genocide; and then through institutions, social norms, capitalism, a phony meritocracy, and ongoing White political power and privilege—all of which interact together to perpetuate inequalities, and none of which can be remedied without forcing government to use force to override the institutional and socioeconomic roadblocks that keep disadvantaged minorities from advancing, and, at the same time, to stop Whites and those who think like Whites from continuing to unfairly accede to positions of power, influence and wealth in government, education, medicine, entertainment, media, and industry.

Well, since I don’t buy into this definition, that makes me a racist, especially in view of my shameful background.

Starting 50 years ago at an international company, and continuing over my corporate career, I was at the vanguard of equal rights, equal opportunity, and affirmative action (i.e., outreach).  Among other actions, my efforts included going on retreats with Blacks to have frank discussions about race, teaching managers what it’s like for a minority to enter a workforce or attend a meeting where everyone else is a different race, removing counterproductive barriers to advancement, and firing bad managers.

At the same time, I embraced Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s warning about the dire consequences that paternalism and poorly designed welfare programs would have on Black families.

A shameful background, for sure.

Even more shameful, I now believe that the DEI juggernaut has taken a page from the Mafia. 

To explain:

The Mafia came about for understandable reasons.  For millennia, the island of Sicily had been crisscrossed by conquerors and by the ancient version of colonizers, including Africans.  Inhabitants of the island were slaughtered, enslaved, and otherwise oppressed.  In more recent history, Sicilians were subjected to corrupt, confiscatory governments.  Joining or supporting the Mafia was a way for impoverished Sicilians to defend themselves from predation.

When Sicilians and other Italians, including my grandparents, immigrated to the U.S., they were considered non-White by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment and treated accordingly—as one step up from Blacks.  That gave the Mafia a beachhead in America.

The problem is that the Mafia became even more corrupt, unethical, and self-serving than the establishment it was fighting.  In other words, the victims became victimizers and began preying on innocent people.

In a similar evolution, DEI came about as a response to prejudice and discrimination against selected groups but now engages in prejudice and discrimination against people who had nothing to do with the original prejudice and discrimination.

That sure seems like racism.

*****

Image Credit: Pixabay

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.