‘Answer The Question’: Sparks Fly As Trump Spars With Judge In NYC Fraud Case thumbnail

‘Answer The Question’: Sparks Fly As Trump Spars With Judge In NYC Fraud Case

By The Daily Caller

Former President Donald Trump was told not to make “speeches” soon after taking the stand Monday to testify during his New York civil fraud trial.

Judge Arthur Engoron reminded the former president to stay on topic and told his lawyer “this is not a political rally,” according to The Hill. His sons and co-defendants, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., testified in the trial last week.

“I’m sure the judge will rule against me because he always rules against me,” Trump said in response to a question about his role in preparing financial statements, according to CNN.

“You can attack me, you can do whatever you want, but answer the question,” Engoron said, per the outlet.

Judge Arthur Engoron ruled before the trial started that Trump and his business exaggerated his net worth and assets, deceiving banks and insurance companies. Democratic Attorney General Letita James, who brought the case against Trump, is seeking to prevent him from doing business in the state and secure $250 million in damages.

Trump argued during his testimony that the New York Attorney General’s office underestimated Mar-a-Lago’s value. He said the value of his “brand” alone would have increased the value of his properties, according to The Hill.

“If I wanted to build up the statement, like you said I did before you found out just how rich we are, I would’ve added brand value here and I would’ve increased it by tens of millions of dollars,” Trump said, per CNN.

Engoron told Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise to “control” his client.

“I would think, respectfully — of all witnesses — your honor would want to hear everything this witness has to say,” Kise said, per The Hill. Engoron responded that he did “not want to hear everything this witness has to say.”

“I beseech you to control him if you can,” Ergoron said, according to CNN. “If you can’t I will. I will I excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”

Trump also said during testimony that the trial was “very unfair.”

“I hope the public is watching,” Trump said, per The Hill.

Trump Jr. testified Thursday that he relied on the company’s accountants, according to CBS News.

“These people had an incredible, intimate knowledge and I relied on them,” he said, per the outlet.

Engoron issued a gag order against Trump early October after he made a post on Truth Social referring to Allison Greenfield, Engoron’s clerk, as the “girlfriend” of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Since then, he’s issued $5,000 and $10,000 fines against Trump for violating the order and expanded it to prevent his attorneys from making comments referring to “confidential communications” between him and his staff.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Judge Expands Gag Order To Include Trump’s Attorneys

Former Trump Official Sues Biden Admin Over Committee With Members Who Signed Hunter Biden Laptop Letter

RELATED POSTS ON X:

Trumps lawyer is 🔥 pic.twitter.com/yJuYzNbV8W

— Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) November 7, 2023

pic.twitter.com/ziQ6D7O5cN

— MARY WICKER (@MARYWICKER20) November 6, 2023

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.

VIDEOS: Survivors recount what happened on Oct. 7th at Kibbutz Alumim during Hamas’ attack thumbnail

VIDEOS: Survivors recount what happened on Oct. 7th at Kibbutz Alumim during Hamas’ attack

By Dr. Rich Swier

Sarit Kurtzman lived with her husband and 14-month-old daughter on Kibbutz Alumim, just four kilometers from the Gaza border. While they’re used to the sounds of rockets, planes, and tanks, the sounds they heard on October 7th were unlike anything they’d heard before.

For 26 hours, they hid in their safe room as terrorists infiltrated their Kibbutz and wreaked havoc on all that they knew. Sarit tells her brave and miraculous story of survival with tremendous strength and faith.

Avida Bachar managed to survive the massacre in Be’eri with his daughter, but lost his wife and son.

In a heart-wrenching interview from the hospital, Bachar spoke about survival and loss, “The terrorists saw my wife moving and shot her. I told my daughter – “Mommy doesn’t hurt anymore, Carmel is now in a better place.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Gaza Woman Says Hamas Top Dogs Drive SUVs and Live in Luxury While Ordinary Gazans are Poor

TERROR TV: NPR Is Supporting Hamas Terrorism @NPRpubliceditor

Adobe Caught Selling Dishonest AI-Generated Images As Actual Photos of Israel ‘Violence’

Middle East Received $21 Billion In U.S. Foreign Aid Under Biden Administration

RELATED POSTS ON X:

Now in Mashhad #Iran, near Felestin Subway Station.

Brave Iranians are setting pro-hamas billboards that were installed by the Islamic Republic on fire. Despite Mashhad being labeled as the holy, and a more supportive city of the Islamic regime – still #IraniansStandWithIsrael pic.twitter.com/pSE901s7tP

— Emily (@emilyshar1) November 6, 2023

Israel’s Saturday Night Live equivalent ran a segment mocking woke antisemitic university students and it’s one of the best things I’ve ever seen

pic.twitter.com/BbnclVGZHz

— Josh Feldman ג’וש פלדמן (@joshrfeldman) November 5, 2023

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

Nashville Police Department Releases Statement Addressing Alleged School Shooter Manifesto thumbnail

Nashville Police Department Releases Statement Addressing Alleged School Shooter Manifesto

By The Daily Caller

The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) said Monday the three images alleged to be part of the Christian Covenant School shooter’s manifesto are not “crime scene images.”

Conservative political commentator Steven Crowder posted photographs of three pages which he alleged are part of a manifesto written by the now-deceased Audrey Hale, who killed six people inside the Covenant School with a firearm in Nashville, Tennessee, back in March. An officer killed Hale as she continued opening fire on the second floor of the building.

“The MNPD is in communication with the Metropolitan Department of Law as an investigation, begun this morning, continues into the dissemination of three photographs of writings during an on-line discussion about Covenant School. The photographs are not MNPD crime scene images,” the statement reads.

Authorities confirmed they discovered a manifesto written by Hale in which she had allegedly planned the attack for several weeks. Following the shooting, authorities obtained the manifesto, which is under an ongoing investigation by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU).

The MNPD told the Daily Caller earlier Monday that they currently “don’t know” whether the three pages are authentic.

“I don’t know at this time,” a spokeswoman told the Daily Caller via phone call in response to whether they could confirm the authenticity of the pages. A spokesperson later told the Caller they had no update on the information as the department is still looking into the matter.

“The police department has been in contact with a representative of Covenant families,” the statement continues. “Police department counselors are available to assist them in coping with the emotional trauma caused by the dissemination.”

A police spokeswoman also told Fox News they are “aware” of a possible leak of the manifesto. David Raybin, an attorney representing Hale’s parents, said he could not confirm the pages’ authenticity, according to WSMV4, a local NBC affiliated outlet.

“We have never seen a manifesto at any time. We’re not in a position to authenticate these pieces of paper. We have absolutely not released anything, but we certainly did not release this,” Raybin said. “It’s inappropriate for me to make any further comment about it.”

Crowder posted photos of a notebook, in which the first page was headlined “DEATH DAY,” where it describes the writer’s excitement to shoot people inside the school and have a “high death count.” The next alleged page reads “kill those kids!” at the top, followed by “those crackers,” a derogatory term for white people.

“Kill those kids! Those crackers,” the page posted by Crowder reads. “Going to private fancy schools with those fancy kwackis + sports backpacks with their daddies mustangs + convertibles. Fuck you little shits. I wish to shoot you[r] weak ass dicks w/your mop yellow hair, wanna kill all you little crackers!!! Bunch of little faggots w/your white privileges fuck you faggots.”

https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/1721545965402726734

The next alleged page shows a schedule of the day leading up to the shooting, listing 12:33 p.m. as the time to “open fire” and then “die” soon after, according to the photograph posted by Crowder.

Shortly after the shooting, authorities revealed that Hale was a female who identified as a male and worked as an artist. She had bought seven firearms legally despite medical professionals’ concerns about her mental state, and law enforcement previously said they would have confiscated her firearms if they had been made aware of the concerns.

Nashville Metro Police Department told the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) in late March that they were not publicly releasing the manifesto due to an “open investigation.” The BAU was investigating the manifesto that had been previously reported to have “maps” and “writings” detailing Hale’s plan to shoot up the building.

A Nashville city council member assured the DCNF that the manifesto would eventually be released to the public.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the MNPD’s statement released Monday afternoon.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media Twists Itself Into Knots Covering Transgender School Shooter

Leaked “Death Day” Nashville Manifesto Shows Trans Shooter Targeted White Children, “Cr*ckers” with White Privilege

RELATED POST ON X:

https://twitter.com/MattWallace888/status/1721599284171174343

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

‘The Elephant in the Room’: The Real Source of Jew-Hatred in the Middle East thumbnail

‘The Elephant in the Room’: The Real Source of Jew-Hatred in the Middle East

By Lawrence A. Franklin

For [many Muslims], the Koran, every word of it, is the dictated word of Allah (God) as told by the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Allah’s prophet Muhammad….

Ten years ago, U.S. soldiers being deployed to the Middle East who flew to Qatar or Kuwait on the United Arab Emirates airline, before the UAE’s supreme leadership in spearheading the Abraham Accords, reported that on maps in-flight brochures, a country named Israel did not exist. Many seem to be working now to make that a reality, not just on a map.

The “elephant in the room,” which few commentators have had the courage to explore, is that for many Muslims, “Jew-hatred” is dogma. The 114 sura (chapters) of the Koran are replete with passages of Jew-hatred. Pictured: Adolf Hitler meets with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, on November 28, 1941.

(Image source: German Federal Archive)

“We are not sub-humans. Let me repeat: We are not sub-humans,” said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian Authority’s representative to the United Nations, after the sub-human atrocities inflicted on innocent civilians in Israel by his fellow Palestinian Arabs. He felt the need to repeat the claim twice last month at an emergency session of the of the UN General Assembly, possibly to try to convince anyone he could. Hamas and Iran reportedly masterminded the murderous invasion. Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to hold at least 240 Israeli hostages in Gaza.

It was not long before media commentators, after the October 7 mass murder in Israeli towns and villages near Gaza, began to air pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses and in the streets of US cities. Many of these demonstrators openly rationalized and even defended the actions of Hamas.

Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi gave a supposed history lesson about Israel’s 1948 War of Independence during which, he claimed, Jews ethnically cleansed Palestinian Arabs from their land. In reality, five Arab armies attacked Israel a few hours after its birth on May 15 1948, and then lost. Some of the Arabs who lived in the area that became Israel left of their own volition during the war, at the request of Arab leader that they “get out of the way” of the invading Arab armies. Israel did not allow them to return after the war, stating that they had not been loyal. Thus the “Palestinians” were born – between 472,000 and 650,000 people who found themselves stateless when the country they had refused to defend refused to let them back. Approximately 160,000 Arabs remained in Israel through the war and were granted full citizenship in the new state.

The Palestinians’ rich Arab “brothers” would not grant them citizenship in their countries and instead dumped them into often squalid refugee camps – for which they blamed Israel.

By contrast, nearly 1 million Jews were expelled or forced to flee from Arab and Muslim countries beginning in 1948, and they were welcomed into tiny, impoverished Israel and granted citizenship.

Arabs have since referred to a war that they started and lost as the nakba (catastrophe), and continue to blame Israel for not cooperating in its own elimination. Perhaps they should have thought of that before starting the war.

Gazans are now apparently calling their situation of being bombarded by Israel a “new nakba.” Left unmentioned is that this new so-called nakba is a direct response to the October 7 Arab invasion and murder of 1,400 Jews in a single day, including babies beheaded and burned alive. Other commentators referred to the 16-year blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt to justify their current anger – again “forgetting” the sickening assault on October 7. The Arabs are also “forgetting” that the blockade was established because the Gazans were smuggling in vast quantities of weapons and ammunition with which to murder Jews. Why won’t those irritating Jews just let themselves be killed?

The “elephant in the room,” which few commentators have had the courage to explore, is that for many Muslims, “Jew-hatred” is dogma. For them, the Koran, every word of it, is the dictated word of Allah (God) as told by the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Allah’s prophet Muhammad. The Koran does not, like much of the Bible, consist of descriptive stories that can be believed or not as the reader wished. It is more proscriptive, like the Ten Commandments. One cannot say, “Oh, He didn’t really mean the one about adultery.”

Like it or not, this “divine” word of Allah, compiled in the 114 sura (chapters) of the Koran, is replete with passages of Jew-hatred, such as the verse:

“So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterward or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command].” — K

oran 47:4, Sahih International translation

Beheading “infidels” is a centuries-long tradition in Islam, and still used today: a teacher, Samuel Paty, in France who showed his students “controversial” Mohammad cartoons; a British soldier, Lee Rigby, in the United Kingdom, and, this month, babies in Israel (here and here).

Hamas includes this command in its original charter — in particular Article 7 — which advocates not only destroying Israel but killing Jews worldwide. In 2014 Hamas had planned a similar assault on the villages and towns near the border with Gaza. Hamas terrorists, at least 200 of them, had planned to invade through their Gaza-based tunnel system around the Jewish New Year holiday of Rosh Hashanah (that year, September 24). Israeli security services noted that Hamas had plans to kidnap Israeli citizens in this earlier plan as well.

In the Koran, Allah has cursed the Jews for the unseemly manner in which the Koran described the Hebrews treating and disobeying the prophets of God. This “divine” curse includes scattering the Jews throughout the globe, forever exiling them from their ancient homeland.

Some “true believer” Muslims therefore feel they have the right to murder Jews anywhere at any time. They believe there is no credence in the historical reality of a biblical Israel, no legitimacy in the geopolitical areas of Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank). Those they call “Zionists” (meaning Israelis and Jews), despite having lived in the land continuously for nearly 4,000 years, are falsely labeled “occupiers” and “colonialists” who must be made to disappear. There is to be no “Jewish National Home” as guaranteed by post-World War II international agreements and the UN.

The real dispute from that brand of Islamic Jew-hatred is not about land, or “refugees” or a “two-state solution.” It is about the refusal by many Muslims to co-exist with Jews. The anti-Israel chant of pro-Palestinian protestors is: “From the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, Palestine will be free” — meaning “free” of Jews. This hoped-for Islamist outcome is reinforced in Arab school textbooks, maps that omit Israel, and even crossword puzzles. Ten years ago, U.S. soldiers being deployed to the Middle East who flew to Qatar or Kuwait on the United Arab Emirates airline, before the UAE’s supreme leadership in spearheading the Abraham Accords, reported that on maps in flight brochures, a country named Israel did not exist. Many seem to be working now to make that a reality, not just on a map.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

*****

This article was published by the Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot Forbes

TAKE ACTION

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

The Riddle of Ray Epps Continues thumbnail

The Riddle of Ray Epps Continues

By The Editors

/in , , , , , , /by

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

TAKE ACTION

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

ADVERTISEMENT

0 0 The Editors 2023-11-06 07:43:00The Riddle of Ray Epps Continues

Another “Hawkish Hold” with Tightening Bias: Fed Keeps Rates at 5.50% Top…‘The Elephant in the Room’: The Real Source of Jew-Hatred in the…

Another “Hawkish Hold” with Tightening Bias: Fed Keeps Rates at 5.50% Top of Range, Rate Hike Still on the Table. QT Continues thumbnail

Another “Hawkish Hold” with Tightening Bias: Fed Keeps Rates at 5.50% Top of Range, Rate Hike Still on the Table. QT Continues

By Wolf Richter

Higher for how much longer“The extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate…

The FOMC voted unanimously to keep its five policy rates unchanged today, with the top of its policy rates at 5.50%, as had been broadly messaged in recent weeks in speeches by Fed governors. It was the second meeting in a row when the Fed kept rates unchanged, after the rate hike at its meeting in July. The Fed has hiked by 525 basis points so far in this cycle.

Today, the Fed kept its policy rates at:

  • Federal funds rate target range between 5.25% and 5.5%.
  • Interest it pays the banks on reserves: 5.4%.
  • Interest it pays on overnight Reverse Repos (RRPs): 5.3%.
  • Interest it charges on overnight Repos: 5.5%.
  • Primary credit rate: 5.5% (what banks pay to borrow at the “Discount Window”).

Higher for how much longer?

The end of the rate hikes is typically followed by plateaus before rate cuts begin. The end of the rate hikes may not be here yet, and the Fed has already said a gazillion times for months that the plateau is going to be “higher for longer.”

More rate hikes? Today’s meeting was one of the four meetings a year when the Fed does not release a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP), which includes the infamous “dot plot” which shows how each FOMC member sees the development of future policy rates.

At the last meeting on September 20, the median projection in the “dot plot” kept another rate hike on the table for this year. There was nothing in today’s statement that changes that.

Today’s statement repeated the language of the prior statements, which leaves the door open for more rate hikes:

“In determining the extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate to return inflation to 2 percent over time, the Committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments.”

When will the rate cuts start? The Fed will release its next SEP and “dot plot” at the December meeting. In the SEP released in December 2022, the Fed shocked the world because it removed the projections of a rate cut in 2023. In the SEP released in September, the Fed moved the rate cuts further out into the second half of 2024, which was another shocker. So the next SEP in December will be interesting.

QT continues, with the Treasury roll-off capped at $60 billion per month, and the MBS roll-off capped at $35 billion a month, as per plan and on autopilot. The Fed has already shed over $1 trillion in assets in a little over a year, and this will continue.

Banking crisis copy-and-paste. Today’s statement repeats the same language about the banking crisis for the fourth meeting in a row: That the “tighter credit conditions for households and businesses are likely to weigh on economic activity, hiring, and inflation.” And it repeats that “the extent of these effects remains uncertain.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

TAKE ACTION

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

Germany: School Officials Cave to Muslim Migrant Demands To Change the Name of the Anne Frank School thumbnail

Germany: School Officials Cave to Muslim Migrant Demands To Change the Name of the Anne Frank School

By The Geller Report

And after that speech by the German Vice Chancellora lesson in moral clarity with no equivocation on the Jewish state, this is appalling.

The “Anne Frank” daycare center in Tangerhütte, which has been operating for generations, is set to undergo a name change “It is reported that parents with migrant backgrounds feel uncertain about the name and find it challenging to explain to their children,” the report said.

The new name will be ‘World Explorers’,” BILD said, more like world supremacists.

Germany 2023:

Nazis march through Berlin again.

This time it’s Palestinian Nazis, but the goal is the same:

Kill of ALL the Jews pic.twitter.com/hP3aXfKmxE

— ((🆆3⃣🅱🆂🜃🅶3⃣)) 🇮🇱 I Stand with Israel! 🇮🇱 (@w3bsag3) November 5, 2023

Pro Hamas rally in Essen Germany with ISIS flags pic.twitter.com/EHdi5dgEw0

— Pegida Canada (@PegidaCanada) November 5, 2023

After migrant parent pressure, Anne Frank daycare center to be renamed – report

The renaming is part of a broader concept that aims to celebrate the diversity of the children attending the daycare center, according to Andreas Brohm, the city’s mayor.

By Zvikia Klein, J Post, November 6, 2023:

Parents in Saxony-Anhalt German State promoted the decision to rename the “Anne Frank” daycare center in Tangerhütte, a small town in the state, according to reports in German media.

The move was driven by parents who found it difficult to explain Frank’s significance to their children. According to Apollo News, a German news site, in a small town in Saxony-Anhalt, a daycare center has become the center of a local scandal.

The “Anne Frank” daycare center in Tangerhütte, which has been operating for generations, is set to undergo a name change. The decision to rename the daycare center, named after the most famous Jewish girl, has sparked controversy.

The idea of changing of name of Frank, who tragically died in a concentration camp at the age of 15, has come from migrant parents, according to the daycare center’s director. “It is reported that parents with migrant backgrounds feel uncertain about the name and find it challenging to explain to their children,” the report said.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED POST ON X:

NEW: Actor Jon Voight is publicly scolding his daughter Angelina Jolie, saying he is “disappointed” in her for attacking Israel.

“I am very disappointed that my daughter, like so many, has no understanding of God’s honor. God’s truths.”

“This is about destroying the history of… pic.twitter.com/fyBNaclCNk

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 6, 2023

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

An AZ Invitation to Voter Fraud: Unstaffed Drop Boxes Jeopardize the Safety and Security of Our Elections thumbnail

An AZ Invitation to Voter Fraud: Unstaffed Drop Boxes Jeopardize the Safety and Security of Our Elections

By Arizona Free Enterprise Club

Following in the footsteps of his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears determined to implement an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions. The EPM is used by election officials throughout the state as the rulebook to conduct and run elections, so it is critically important that every provision in the manual strictly adheres to state law.

Now, fresh off an important legal win over the illegal signature verification process in the EPM, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with the Thomas More Society, is suing Fontes once again—this time over unstaffed ballot drop boxes.

An Illegal Method of Voting

Arizona law establishes four different methods for secure early voting. According to A.R.S. § 16-548(A), an early ballot shall either be:

Delivered to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.

Mailed to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.

Deposited by the voter at any polling place in the county.

Deposited by the voter’s agent (family member, household member, caregiver) at any polling place in the county.

Did you catch that? Nowhere in the law does it allow for the use of unstaffed drop boxes. In fact, if you read through Fontes’ EPM, you’ll notice something. Although the EPM includes over 1,000 citations, the section on its unstaffed drop box scheme includes zero citations of Arizona law! You can see for yourself right here. And yet, Fontes still moved forward with this invented option in the final draft of the EPM he submitted to Governor Hobbs and Attorney General Mayes. But the omission of such citations is only one problem with drop boxes.

Drop Boxes Lack the Protections of the USPS

Unlike U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail collection boxes, unstaffed drop boxes don’t enjoy special protections under federal law that could lead to prison sentences for crimes like obstruction of mail passage, destruction of mail, and vandalism of a mailbox. On top of that, these unstaffed drop boxes aren’t required to have locks. Instead, they are “secured” with a “tamper-evident seal.” (Who could get past such a fortress of security?) And, while the USPS requires mail carriers to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, Fontes’ EPM creates the position of “ballot retriever.” Do you know what it takes to qualify as a “ballot retriever”? An individual simply needs to wear a badge when performing his or her duties! That’s it! It’s right there in the EPM.

Then, there’s the simple fact that USPS mailboxes offer an additional level of security because they can contain different varieties of mail at any given time. This makes it impossible for a bad actor to know whether a particular mailbox contains early voted ballots. By contrast, an unstaffed drop box contains only completed ballots, providing anyone who wants to interfere with an election the certainty to know that the contents of the drop box likely contain a significant number of completed ballots.

Other Issues with Drop Boxes

Along with lacking the protections of the USPS, unstaffed drop boxes also increase the possibility of voter intimidation. After all, when a person approaches a drop box, it’s clear that he or she has no reason to be there except to deliver a voted ballot. This makes that person an easy and vulnerable target, which is much less likely to occur at a mailbox or an election official’s office.

And finally, there’s the issue of unsecure locations. Fontes’ EPM doesn’t require unstaffed drop boxes to be located at or near a government building. Because of this drop boxes have been established at churches, elementary schools, restaurants, bookstores, humane societies, and more. In fact, some drop boxes in Yavapai County have been placed at U.S. Postal Offices—mere feet away from a mailbox where voters could legally return their ballots. (You can’t make this stuff up…)

For all these reasons and more, the Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit last week in the Yavapai County Superior Court. The use of drop boxes must be in accordance with state law, and we are hopeful that our lawsuit will result in election officials ending their use at illegal unstaffed locations for the 2024 election. This would give the people of Arizona exactly what they want: elections where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat.

Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network

Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!

Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.

*****

This article was published by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club 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.

The Pro-Hamas Left Is Warming Up For Real Violence thumbnail

The Pro-Hamas Left Is Warming Up For Real Violence

By John Daniel Davidson

The emerging Red-Green alliance is poised to plunge the country into a spat of civic violence comparable to the summer of 2020, or worse.

Talk about bad timing. On Wednesday, the White House announced a “National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia,” the necessity of which, according to awkwardly scripted remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris, is that Muslims endure a disproportionate number of “hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents.”

Leave it to the Biden White House to pick a moment when a wave of antisemitism is surging across America to announce this. Set aside the dearth of evidence that Muslims face persecution or discrimination in mainstream American society. Last year set a record for anti-Jewish hate crimes, breaking the previous record that was set the year before. Since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, antisemitism has erupted in our cities and on campuses, this time with the imprimatur and cooperation of the identitarian left. The idea that now is the time to address Islamophobia is so out of touch with the reality of the moment, only the Biden-Harris administration could possibly have come up with it.

But the announcement inadvertently serves to highlight a rather disturbing development in our civic life. At this point, some three weeks removed from the Hamas slaughter of 1,400 Israelis, it’s hard to deny that we have a domestic constituency for Hamas in this country. Generally speaking, it’s comprised of a broad swath of the woke left together with a broad swath of Muslim-Americans, united in what amounts to an unstable Red-Green alliance.

It’s also easy to see that this Hamas constituency is warming up for a season of real violence.

We’ve all seen the recent videos of self-righteous Hamas sympathizers tearing down posters of missing or kidnapped Israeli children. In almost every case, their actions are accompanied by either a defiant callousness or a dead-eyed nonchalance. Pleading with them or interrogating them is pointless, as every person who has tried to do so on camera has quickly discovered. These people are antisemites, and it’s not possible to shame them out of their antisemitism. They own it gladly.

But this week, a different sort of video appeared on social media. A group of Jews in Manhattan’s Upper East Side physically protected a bunch of posters of Israeli child hostages from an antisemite who was trying to tear them down. The man, who of course covered his face with a keffiyeh, tried to force his way through and a scuffle ensued. Eventually, a cop pulled up and appeared to arrest the man as a crowd gathered.

The incident illustrates the violence lurking just beneath the surface of the antisemitic, pro-Hamas sentiment now manifesting all across the country. The kind of people who are willing to casually rip down posters of children taken hostage by terrorists are not those who have any kind of principled commitment to nonviolence. They might or might not individually be cowards, but they clearly have no problem with violence as such — see, for example, the BLM posters celebrating Hamas paragliders who slaughtered more than 250 Israeli concertgoers on Oct. 7.

This is especially true on our nation’s college campuses. This week at Harvard, whose students have staged some of the most blatant and vile pro-Hamas demonstrations, including straightforward calls for the ethnic cleansing of Jews, a group of keffiyeh-waving students surrounded and then assaulted a Jewish student who was simply trying to get away from them.

Some of these assailants have been identified, like Ibrahim Bharmal, a student at Harvard Law School and an editor at the Harvard Law Review, as well as Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, a student of Harvard Divinity School. That a Harvard law student feels free to harass and assault Jews on campus — the opposite of what we should expect from a student of the law — suggests not only that antisemitism on campus is a real threat to Jewish students but that the pro-Hamas woke left is growing in boldness, and is reasonably confident it can target individual Jews on campus with impunity.

Jon Levine called the Harvard assault a LARP pogrom, which is exactly what it was. And as we know from 2020, left-wing riot and assault LARPers eventually get around to the real thing. Indeed, all the elements are falling into place for a season of civic violence of the kind we saw during the summer of 2020. The White House’s ham-fisted campaign against Islamophobia is all the confirmation you need that Jewish Americans, not Muslims, are the ones in real danger right now.

This is something of a pattern on the left. When a dangerous or unstable element in its coalition is revealed as such, the official narrative is to pretend that element is under unique threat from the American mainstream. Look at the media and Democrat reaction to the mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville back in March. The shooter was Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old woman who identified as a man. She killed three children and three adults before police took her out. Hale was mentally unwell and left behind a kind of trans-shooter manifesto, which was suspiciously never released to the public.

In the wake of the shooting, all we heard from the corporate press and Democratic leaders was that transgender Americans were under threat. Not a word about how transgender ideology attracts mentally unstable, unwell people who need help, not affirmation. That was not the conversation they wanted to have, even after the slaughter of six innocent people.

Likewise, we’re going to hear a lot more about how Muslims and left-wing Hamas apologists are the real victims, even as Jewish students suffer escalating attacks, harassment, and threats. Make no mistake, the violent rhetoric you hear at these pro-Hamas rallies, the revolting practice of tearing down posters of Israeli children taken hostage, the targeting of individual Jewish students on campus — it’s all leading somewhere very bad.

*****

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.

Daughter Of Kamala’s Jewish Husband Raises Almost $8 Million For Gaza thumbnail

Daughter Of Kamala’s Jewish Husband Raises Almost $8 Million For Gaza

By The Daily Caller

Kamala Harris’ stepdaughter raised almost $8 million for Gaza on her Instagram account.

Ella Emhoff made a post promoting a fundraiser “supporting urgent relief for Gaza’s children,” according to the New York Post. The 24-year-old influencer made no mention of murdered Israelis since Hamas’ terror attacks Oct. 7 despite having a Jewish father, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff.

“It’s of tremendous concern and I find it abhorrent,” Republican New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew said. “To be honest with you, I am kind of stunned by it. It’s disturbing to the maximum degree.”

Kamala Harris’ stepdaughter Ella Emhoff has raised nearly $8M for Gaza on her Instagram: ‘Abhorrent’ https://t.co/d0ATwC6e3i pic.twitter.com/0gWnqVvzij

— New York Post (@nypost) November 4, 2023

The fundraiser operated by the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund, accumulated $7.8 million in donations so far, the outlet reported. The nonprofit based in Kent, Ohio has made more than $21 million in 2021, according to ProPublica.

“Ella is not Jewish,” a representative for the second stepdaughter told The Forward in 2021. “It’s not something she grew up with, Ella truly has no qualms with the faith, but she does not want to speak on behalf of Judaism, as she does not celebrate herself.”

Ella Emhoff appeared at New York Fashion Week as a model. The second stepdaughter exposed her left breast to photographers in 2022 while modeling a shear, lime-green “top” equivalent to a wrapped scarf around her neck and chest.

The White House announced a series of measures Monday intended to fight antisemitism on college campuses after pro-Hamas protests occurred across the United States. Among those contributing is Harris’ husband, who met with Jewish organizations and held roundtable discussions on antisemitism in Dec. 2022.

AUTHOR

JULIANNA FRIEMAN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala Harris’ Stepdaughter Steps Out In Bra And Black Jeans

Pro-Palestinian Protesters Swarm Outside White House Chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’

‘Genocide Joe’: Tens Of Thousands Descend On DC To Protest Against Israel Blocks Away From White House

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

Hamas Repeats History thumbnail

Hamas Repeats History

By Craig J. Cantoni

At the same time, increasing numbers of Americans don’t know history or cherry-pick history for political purposes.

The massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas brought me back to eighth grade in parochial school, where something happened that changed how I saw the world and human nature.

What happened was that the nuns showed a shocking film of a Nazi concentration camp right after American soldiers had liberated it.  There were ghastly scenes of emaciated Jews standing about in a daze, half-cremated bodies in ovens, and piles of bodies, spectacles, and gold teeth.

Even at that young age, I wondered how humans could do that to other humans.

Looking for an answer, I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as soon as the 900-page book came out in paperback.  That was followed by over a half-century of reading not only history but also philosophy, ethics, economics, and literature.

At the rate of at least one book every two weeks, that comes to over 1,300 books and counting.

That doesn’t make me erudite or particularly intelligent, but at least I know that I don’t know a lot.  That’s more than college students know.  Over four years, they’ll have read a tiny fraction of that amount, yet they believe that they are well-educated and have all the answers, including about the complexities of Palestine.

Shame on colleges for letting students make fools of themselves by demonstrating how little they’ve learned.  And double shame for using naïve students as political pawns to advance sophomoric notions about social justice, race, and economics, with the latest being the inane notion of decolonization—a notion that is used to justify what Hamas did and to vilify not only Israelis but also Americans, Europeans, and White people in general.

It shouldn’t have to be said, but atrocities, slavery, subjugation, and colonization are not unique to Whites of European ancestry.  It has to be said, though, because generations of American youth don’t seem to know better.

Nor is it profound to state the truth that human evil is universal.  But compared to the selective and simplistic history taught in American schools, it is profound to say so.

The sad fact is that Hamas-like brutality has been common throughout history—albeit without the disgusting celebrations and glee shown by Hamas as they documented their atrocities via modern video technology.  Common or not, the atrocities committed by Hamas are not something to excuse and certainly not to applaud.

Not only has slaughtering been common throughout history, but it has also been common across just about all races, ethnic groups, religions, ideologies, and nationalities.  Also, contrary to American mythology about diversity, it’s been more common where different ethnocultural groups have mingled, interacted and shared borders.

Take the Baltic and Eastern European countries sandwiched between Russia and Germany.  The acclaimed book Bloodlands details the atrocities committed by Soviets and Nazis in those countries before and during the Second World War. This history goes against the conventional ignorance on campus and elsewhere about fascists being worse than communists.

Ukraine was one of the countries caught between the two dictatorships.  However, in an example of how history isn’t black and white, and how victims can also be victimizers, Ukrainians were also guilty of atrocities, as detailed in another acclaimed book:  Iron Curtain:  The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944 – 1956. As the German Army was retreating and the Soviet Army was advancing, Ukrainian partisans saw an opportunity to establish their own sub-state, by cleansing the Polish population from a territory adjoining Poland.  They would go on to slaughter 50,000 Poles, most of whom were civilians, including women and children.

No doubt campus racists would use this as an example of the innate evil of Whites.  In doing so, they would miss a key point:  that if history is peeled back far enough, butchery will be found among every race and nearly every ethnocultural group.  Go back far enough, and archaeological evidence can be found of Homo sapiens killing off Neanderthals.

It would take many pages to list the horrors inflicted by non-Whites and non-Europeans on each other.  Again, that’s not to excuse or minimize the horrors inflicted by Whites on, let’s say, Africans in the slave trade or on Native Americans in the westward conquest and genocide.  Nor is it to deny the need to address the lingering socioeconomic effects of those historic injustices. 

Rather, it is to warn against generalizing and demonizing selected groups for the sins of their ancestors, if for no other reason than the fact that nearly all peoples have evil in their ancestry and thus can be generalized and demonized in return, in a never-ending cycle of recrimination.

Take Native Americans, or to use a voguish term, the indigenes who first inhabited what came to be known as the Americas.

Sure, the indigenes were persecuted, oppressed, and brutalized by Whites.  Sure, they lost their way of life and were consigned to reservations and to welfare dependency.  Sure, the conditions on many reservations are awful.

But it’s also true that before Columbus sailed west, there was a warrior culture among many tribes, a culture in which cruelty was honored and celebrated.  Captured enemy males were subjected to gruesome torture, young women were enslaved, elderly women were killed or left to die in the elements, and babies were killed by such methods as swinging them by their feet to bash their heads against a tree.

The contrast between warrior tribes like the Comanche and peaceful tribes like the Navajo was quite stark.  But even tribes that had a reputation for relative peacefulness were capable of atrocities. Take the Tohono O’odham tribe, whose community abuts my adopted hometown of Tucson, a city where it is increasingly common for a public meeting to begin with a recognition (virtue-signal) that the meeting is taking place on former Native-American land.

On April 28, 1871, the O’odham took the lead in what became known as the Camp Grant massacre.  Ninety-two of them joined six Anglo Americans and 48 Mexican Americans, in an attack on a camp of Aravaipa and Pinal Apache, while most of the Apache men were away on a hunting party.  In total, 144 camp residents were slaughtered, and all but eight of the dead were women and children.  Nearly all were scalped.  Twenty-nine children were sold into slavery in Mexico by the O’odham and the Mexicans.

Keep in mind that the Apache had been driven out of their homeland and into Arizona by the Comanche, who conquered vast amounts of territory and engaged in slavery.  Imagine what the Comanche would have done if they had had warships, standing armies with the latest weaponry and tactics, a central government and administrative state, and a mint and treasury to fund it all.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the 1871 massacre resembles the massacre of Israelis by Hamas 152 years later.  After all, although many institutions have changed for the better, and although liberal democracy has advanced human rights more than any other political system and is the best hope for mankind, human nature hasn’t changed much.

With that, I’ll return to the question I asked in eighth grade:  How can humans do this to other humans?

The answer, of course, is human nature, especially the tribalistic part of human nature.  The potential for violence lies dormant in people until awakened by some catalyst.  Typically, the catalyst is the stereotyping and demonization of another group for real or perceived injustices, even long-ago ones, coupled with envy or ideological fanaticism.

For example, Hitler probably wouldn’t have come to power if it hadn’t been for the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty after the First World War, especially the demand for onerous reparations and the French occupation of the Rhineland.  This in turn enabled him to demonize Jews, although they had little to do with conditions in Germany.

Incidentally, I disagree with much of what author Robert Kagan has written, but he made a valid point in his book, The Ghost at the Feast, that the Second World War probably wouldn’t have happened if the U.S. had left a few thousand peacekeeping troops in the Rhineland, had repealed the excesses of the Versailles Treaty, and had helped to establish a liberal democracy in Germany.  In turn, if WWII hadn’t happened, tens of millions of people wouldn’t have been killed, the Holocaust wouldn’t have taken place, cities wouldn’t have been destroyed, and the Soviet Union wouldn’t have occupied Eastern Europe and followed with mass starvation, purges, and gulags.

Let’s return to the USA and conclude with a warning.

A dangerous situation is building within the nation as a result of a number of divisive forces, including the illiberalism of the far right and far left, the demagoguery at the extremes of both parties, the identity politics in which everyone is assigned an invented racial label, the popular contest of victimhood to see which identity group has been oppressed the most and in the most ways, the exclusion and discrimination masquerading as inclusion and diversity, the demonization of Whites (and Jews once again) based on ugly stereotypes and often driven by revenge and envy, and the cherry-picking of history for political purposes.

It is doubtful that these forces will result in mass atrocities, but there is little doubt that if left unchecked, they will lead to an irreparable tearing of the social fabric.

*****

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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

Florida Sen. Rick Scott Breaks Precedent, Endorses Trump Over DeSantis thumbnail

Florida Sen. Rick Scott Breaks Precedent, Endorses Trump Over DeSantis

By The Daily Caller

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott released an op-ed Thursday morning endorsing Donald Trump for President in 2024 over the state’s governor Ron DeSantis.

Scott published the piece for Newsweek, saying he thinks it is time for the Republican party to unite behind Trump and said although he knows most of the GOP candidates running for President, he believes Trump is the only one who can beat President Joe Biden. The Florida Senator also said although he will not ask for the other candidates to drop out of the race, he believes the stakes are too high and that Trump is the best option for the country.

“I am often asked whether this is the beginning of the end of America. It will be, if we stop fighting and cede our country to the incompetent, radical Democrats who are destroying the fundamental values that make America great. We of course do not even know if Joe Biden is lucid enough to be aware that his administration is destroying America. Biden’s presidency has become an embarrassment to his political party and to our entire nation,” Scott wrote.

“I am optimistic that we can return America to its rightful position of economic and military strength and the undisputed moral leader of the free world, but only with strong leadership in the White House. That is why I support my friend President Donald J. Trump to be the 47th president of the United States and encourage every Republican to unite behind his efforts to win back the White House,” he continued.

“It’s time for the Republican Party to come together, behind one candidate, and declare with one voice that we are united in our efforts to defeat Joe Biden and rescue America,” Scott added.

“I know most of the candidates running for president, and I respect their decision to put themselves through this very difficult process. They’ve made their case to voters, laid out their agendas and their plans, and told their stories. Make no mistake: every single one of them would be a better president than Joe Biden. But Republican voters are making their voices heard loud and clear. They want to return to the leadership of Donald Trump,” he said.

National polling shows Trump ahead of other GOP candidates by a large lead. Other polls also show Trump beating Biden in the general election.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter.

RELATED POST ON X:

President Trump in Houston TX yesterday.. this brought me to tears and gave me goosebumps! 🙏🏻❤️🇺🇲🇺🇲 pic.twitter.com/0ozWv4rDjx

— 🇺🇲Ultra MAGA Trump Gal🇺🇲 (@RedactedKelly45) November 3, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nazi Collaborator George Soros Behind Bid to Remove Trump from Ballot in Key State

Trump Rips RNC, Says They Have To Stop Debates

Trump Weighs In On Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce Relationship

A Perfect Electoral Storm That Would Wreck Biden ’24 Quietly Gathers Steam

‘Trump At Least Knew What To Say’: Migrant Caravan Leader Mocks Biden’s ‘Weak’ Border Policies, Says US Is Being Duped

‘I Will Object’: JD Vance Says He Will Continue To Hold Up Key Biden DOJ Nominees Over Trump Indictments

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

Senate Dems Target Private Conservative Citizens over Donations thumbnail

Senate Dems Target Private Conservative Citizens over Donations

By Family Research Council

Senate Democrats are targeting private citizens in an effort to manipulate the Supreme Court. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, led by chairman Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), announced on Monday that they will vote to subpoena Harlan Crow and Robin Arkley, who have donated money to conservative Supreme Court justices and Leonard Leo.

The co-chairman of the Federalist Society, Leo is credited with landing Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and is a friend of originalist Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have been targeted by Democrats over the past several months over alleged “ethics” issues.

Judiciary Committee Democrats began seeking information from Leo back in July regarding his interactions and communications with Supreme Court justices. Leo and his attorney responded with a letter on July 25, raising “various legal objections to the committee’s requests for information from Mr. Leo about his interactions with Supreme Court Justices,” according to the letter, which was shared with The Washington Stand.

Leo argued that the Senate did not have the authority to demand the information in question without a constitutionally valid reason, with attorney David Rivkin, Jr. noting that the Judiciary Committee has been “largely silent as to why our objections are supposedly unfounded, leaving us with only the Committee’s ipse dixit that we are obligated to turn over the extensive and sensitive personal information it seeks.” Rivkin also noted, in his letter of October 19, that the Judiciary Committee took nearly three months to respond to his July letter rebutting their requests for information.

In comments to The Washington Stand, Leo declared, “I will not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal McCarthyism that seeks to destroy the Supreme Court simply because it follows the Constitution rather than their political agenda.” Rivkin called the Judiciary Committee’s harassment of Leo “a form of political retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause.” He added, “The shallowness of the committee’s supposed legislative purpose clearly manifests the committee’s true aims. In actuality, the committee is out to smear, impugn, and punish Mr. Leo, because the committee Democrats do not like his political advocacy, and they want to shut it down.”

In support of this claim, Rivkin listed a number of statements made by Democrats on the committee — mostly Durbin and Whitehouse — smearing Leo as the ringleader of a “filthy web of dark money, right-wing billionaires, compliant Supreme Court Justices.” Rivkin noted that such statements “remove any doubt, if there was any to begin with, that the committee is targeting Mr. Leo out of hostility toward his political views and associations.” Whitehouse in particular has made alleged “dark money” a mainstay of his Senate career, hosting a YouTube series and publishing a book, both called “The Scheme,” alleging right-wing billionaires have essentially bought the U.S. Supreme Court. In his book, Whitehouse singles out by name the Federalist Society, of which Leo is co-chair.

“The Committee Democrats’ statements are merely one of many indications that this inquiry is driven by a desire to harass and silence Mr. Leo,” Rivkin continued. “Another hallmark of unlawful First Amendment retaliation is an incongruity between what government officials say they are trying to accomplish and what they actually do.” The attorney pointed out that if the Judiciary Committee were truly concerned with who had access to and influence over justices, they would be examining both disclosed and undisclosed gifts, payments, reimbursements, and the like, not focusing on obtaining private information regarding friendships and communications two specific justices have had.

Justice Thomas has been treated by real estate developer Harlan Crow, his friend of about 25 years, to trips on his yacht and private jet, while Justice Alito was taken on a fishing trip by mortgage broker Robin Arkley about 15 years ago. Thomas failed to initially disclose Crow’s gifts when the Judicial Conference Committee changed financial disclosure rules, while Alito argued he was not the beneficiary of a gift but of simple hospitality, which does not need to be reported. Democrats have been calling on Thomas and Alito to resign, citing the acceptance of such gifts or hospitality as a form of unethical conduct, a charge both justices have rejected.

Reciting a litany of disclosed instances in which left-wing justices may have been exposed to undue influence through gifts or events, Rivkin said that “what the committee clearly cares most about is obtaining information that it believes will help it punish and embarrass people like Mr. Leo with whom committee Democrats have political disagreements.” Furthermore, he noted that the committee supposedly requested such information to support its drafting of legislation to bar Supreme Court justices from weighing in on certain cases by forcing them to recuse themselves.

But the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act was already approved by the committee and forwarded to the full Senate to be voted upon. “Logically,” Rivkin explained, “that means the committee must have concluded that it already had enough information to make an informed legislative decision about what kinds of ethics reforms are needed. Despite this, the committee’s investigation carries on, and a renewed request for information has been lodged…” He added, “The sequencing of bill writing, bill consideration, and bill reporting followed by purported factual investigation is odd, to put it charitably.”

Given that the SCERT Act, the basis for the investigation, was voted out of committee months ago, Rivkin argued that the Judiciary Committee no longer has any right to the information it is requesting from Leo and others and is, in fact, forbidden by the Constitution from pursuing the point. He wrote:

“Here, the unnecessary disclosure of details about Mr. Leo’s private life is not just the predominant intended result of the committee’s inquiry, it is likely the only result. Any information Mr. Leo might share with the committee could not possibly aid in the drafting of a bill that has already been reported out of committee. … Instead, as we have stressed, the committee’s inquiry actually appears to be undertaken for the unfortunate and improper purposes of scoring partisan points against a detested political opponent and vilifying him in the court of public opinion.”

Rivkin added, “Similarly, the committee’s attempt to manufacture the appearance of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Leo in connection with an alleged ‘financial scheme’ to ‘influence the Supreme Court’ … is not a valid legislative purpose; it is an attempted congressional prosecution.”

Leo’s attorney also offered his scathing criticism of the SCERT Act, writing at one point, “These provisions, if they were to ever become law, would be blatant usurpations by Congress of the judicial power.” He noted that the SCERT Act, if approved, would essentially invert the structure of the courts, giving inferior courts the right of oversight over the Supreme Court, and would make the courts subordinate to Congress instead of being a co-equal branch of government.

Republicans have already united against the SCERT Act, correctly asserting that it would dismantle the courts and “destroy” a co-equal branch of government as enumerated in the Constitution. None of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee supported the legislation — all suggested amendments and ultimately voted against it. The legislation is unlikely to succeed in the closely-divided Senate and even less likely to succeed in the Republican-controlled House.

Earlier this year, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb launched an investigation into Leo and organizations with which he has been affiliated, mostly Catholic nonprofits, citing allegations of financial mismanagement and violations of nonprofit tax law. Although Schwalb’s investigation has yet to be concluded, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) announced on Monday that they would be launching a congressional investigation into the D.C. Attorney General for his harassment of Leo.

The congressmen called Schwalb’s investigation “improper and politically motivated,” writing, “Given prior attempts by state attorneys general to target conservative nonprofits and their donors — and your apparent political motivations for investigating Mr. Leo — the committees are concerned about potential infringement on free association and donor privacy.” They also noted that, in addition to potentially violating the constitutionally-protected right to free association and donor privacy, Schwalb may be operating outside his jurisdiction, as neither Leo nor the nonprofits under investigation are located in D.C.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED POST ON X:

Since ‘Ray Epps’ is trending – Here’s a reminder of him desperately inciting violence on J6, and he’s STILL RUNNING FREE! pic.twitter.com/PJReXoWOWI

— 🇺🇸ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) November 4, 2023

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.

Steeped in Islamic Orthodoxy, Hamas Is Israel’s Permanent Enemy thumbnail

Steeped in Islamic Orthodoxy, Hamas Is Israel’s Permanent Enemy

By Srdja Trifkovic

Editors Note: The latest manifestation of the war between Western Civilization and radical political Islamism, is the current Israeli-Gaza War.  But the US has been deeply involved since 911, despite our haphazard retreat from Afghanistan. The Western mind just recoils at the idea of facing over one billion Muslims who are susceptible to the propaganda of a minority of radical Islamists.  The multicultural mind sees no difference between cultures and civilizations, and for us to think we are somewhat more civilized, is viewed as chauvinistic.  But it isn’t.  We don’t want their civilization, and for good reason.  All cultures are not equal.  It is a clash of civilizations. Yet our leaders continue the dangerous fiction that we don’t have the moral right to defend our way of life and that large numbers of people who hate our civilization are great to invite into the country.  Europe is now likely, fatally comprised by such notions. Radical Muslims are at least consistent.  They believe what they believe.  They fight for what they believe. We in the West now don’t know what we believe, and if we do, we have been taught it was awful by the cultural Marxists who dominate the high points of education and culture.  As a result, we fire a few shots off and retreat hoping they still don’t want to come after us and that they do not intend to pursue their goals of conquering us.  After the failure of partition in 1948, numerous wars, and endless negotiations the Left in both Israel and the US continued to peddle the fiction of a two-state solution.  As proven by the recent events, that simply gives the Islamists a territory to use to prepare for eventual subjugation. It takes two sides to agree to a two-state solution and Islamists never have agreed to the proposition. The ultimate solution must come from within Islam itself. We should encourage that but that is hard to do when your own position is philosophical jello. Until reform sweeps Islam, one has to enter into the battle of ideas and keep a strong military.  But if one no longer believes in the validity of one’s own civilization, then we will lose the battle of ideas and eventually weaken ourselves militarily.  Why fight for something you don’t believe in? Israel’s battle is a fight for all who believe in Western civilization. But is it just one front in a war we don’t want to admit even exists.  The struggle for us didn’t end with the retreat from Afghanistan.  If anything, our inability to understand both the spiritual and military power of our adversary has encouraged their advance.

In the Holy Land, faith has never been a wholly private affair separable from political, cultural, and ethnic motives and sensibilities. This is more clearly the case now than it was a generation ago. Thus, the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, which may otherwise have been amenable to the traditional forms of diplomatic horse trading, has been transformed into a civilizational and religious clash beyond politics.

Hamas and other Islamist groups are founded on the notion which, for them, is indisputably scripturally correct: Accepting Israel’s legitimacy is incompatible with Islamic teaching. It says that when the infidels usurp a Muslim land, jihad becomes mandatory. According to the Hamas Charter, the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (endowment) consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day:

It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

A permanent peace settlement is structurally impossible because any lasting compromise that would entail legitimizing Israel would be not only treasonous but blasphemous. From the Muslim point of view, there is nothing extraordinary about this view. It is derived from the Koran, from Muhammad’s sayings collected in the Hadith, and from the political tradition which is 14 centuries old. Giving up any part of Palestine would be a disobedient act of irreverence against Allah. Intransigence is al-hal-wahid (“the only right way” ). Struggle is a sacred duty, rather than merely a patriotic one.

Fighting Israel is more than a “war of national liberation”: it is an act of worship for which Allah will reward the mujaheed. In addition to the verses of the Koran, there are dozens of hadiths with Muhammad’s assurances that Allah guarantees to all jihadi warriors instant paradise in case of martyrdom, or plentiful reward to the survivors. “And whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward.” (Koran, surah An-Nisa, ayat 74 ) This promise remains to this day a powerful incentive to would-be martyrs, from Gaza and Ramallah to south Lebanon. To be a mujaheed is a win-win proposition to the teeming masses of angry Palestinian youths with no employment and no prospects.

Hardcore Islamism used to be confined to a minority among educated Arab elites until the late 20th century. The drastic decline of Islam’s power in relation to Europe after 1918 prompted those elites to frame the search for national-cultural identity and political empowerment in terms of Arab nationalism with distinctly secular overtones. Pan-Arabism, rather than Islam, became the major theme. After World War II, and particularly with the creation of the state of Israel, pan-Arabists went beyond promoting a sense of common heritage and started promoting the creation of a unitary Arab state.

The traditionalist religious masses could also support pan-Arabism because it retained much of the Islamic vocabulary. The term umma, the community of the faithful, was customized to refer to the Arab nation (al-umma al-’arabiyya).  After the 1952 revolution in Egypt, Arab nationalism became secular, leftist, and anti-Western. It was anti-Israeli in an overtly anticolonial sense: Israel was perceived as a Western outpost settled by Europeans and Americans in an Arab land.

Until around 1990 such wider Arab elite proclivities also applied to the Palestinian political mainstream. The Fatah/PLO resistance to Israel depended for support on pan-Arab sentiment abroad and the promotion of a secular “Palestinian” identity at home. The grand step came with the collapse of the USSR. In the aftermath of the abortive global secularist project, young Arabs turned to Allah in droves. The first overtly religious clash between Jews and Arabs since 1948 took place on Oct. 8, 1990, when a bloody riot broke out on the Temple Mount. Israeli police killed at least 17 Palestinians and wounded a hundred. Riots soon spread all over the West Bank, which was nothing new; the protesters were shouting Allahu akbar, which was a novelty.

Before long, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah became household names. They were able to build a substantial power base and an infrastructure that covers Islamic, charitable, political, and military activities. The founder and head of Hamas, the late Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, ingeniously merged the nationalist watchwords of the secularist Arab pre-1990s resistance to Israel with his hardliner views based on the tenets of orthodox Sunni Islam. 

A mirror image is a Jewish claim that the modern state of Israel is the embodiment of a biblical covenant, effectively a Waqf under another name. Secular Israelis, including the late prime minister Golda Meir  (“Israel exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy”), and the country’s founders before her, have utilized such claims as propaganda tools whenever it suited their needs.

The alliance of religion and nationalism in the Arab-Israeli dispute has been detrimental to the quest for a lasting solution. On the Palestinian side, it created a mendacious duality of approach that allowed temporary compromise as a short-term expedient, while the destruction of the State of Israel remained the only divinely ordained and therefore legitimate long-term outcome. Some politicians of the Fatah old guard have pretended otherwise, talking of the need for renewed diplomacy, but the community defers to those who invoke Islam to deny the possibility of peace.

It is necessary to be aware of the ambitions of political Islam and to harbor no illusions about its goals. Yitzhak Rabin was not engaging in mere propaganda when he declared, in Dec. 1992, that his country’s “struggle against murderous Islamic terror is also meant to awaken the world, which is lying in slumber.” 

We should be no less aware, however, that in Israel the problem of Palestinian jihadism is used as an alibi for self-defeating policies that effectively facilitate the growth of Islamic radicalism.

*****

This article was published by Chronicles 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.

Former Rep. Trent Franks Shakes Up Congressional Race to Replace Debbie Lesko thumbnail

Former Rep. Trent Franks Shakes Up Congressional Race to Replace Debbie Lesko

By Cameron Arcand

Former Congressman Trent Franks entered the race to fill outgoing Rep. Debbie Lesko’s seat in Congress on Wednesday.

Franks, who resigned from the Congress in 2017, decided that he is going to vie for the position once again. His resignation in the 8th Congressional District led to Lesko’s tenure, and Franks had served in Congress since 2003.

In a statement, the Republican said that he originally did not feel compelled to enter the race until supporters began contacting him following the news that Lesko would not seek re-election.

“I was sincerely taken aback by the lucidity and near unanimity of many people I so deeply respect and trust most who ardently encouraged me to make the diligent effort to return to Congress,” Franks wrote.

Franks resigned in December 2017 after allegedly making inappropriate comments relating to surrogate pregnancies to female staffers, NBC News reported at the time. One of the allegations included Franks offering a staffer $5 million to be a surrogate for him and his wife, according to The New York Times.

“I have absolutely never physically intimidated, coerced, or had, or attempted to have, any sexual contact with any member of my congressional staff,” he said in a 2017 statement. “However, I do want to take full and personal responsibility for the ways I have broached a topic that, unbeknownst to me until very recently, made certain individuals uncomfortable. And so, I want to shed light on how those conversations came about. My wife and I have long struggled with infertility. We experienced three miscarriages.”

His entry shakes up a crowded primary race of political heavyweights, such as former U.S. Senate nominee Blake Masters, former attorney general nominee Abraham Hamadeh, state Sen. Anthony Kern, and likely state House Speaker Ben Toma. 

Lesko has endorsed Toma, but Masters has won the endorsement of Congressman Paul Gosar, and Hamadeh has been endorsed by Senate candidate Kari Lake.

Early polling data showed either Masters or Hamadeh leading, but Franks’ decision to run is considered such a surprise that he was not included in those polls.

*****

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

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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

After falsely claiming ‘white supremacists’ were top terror threat, FBI top dog Wray now warns of Hamas attacks in U.S. thumbnail

After falsely claiming ‘white supremacists’ were top terror threat, FBI top dog Wray now warns of Hamas attacks in U.S.

By Jihad Watch

This malignant clown is just covering his tracks. For years he has been lying, claiming that “white supremacists” constituted the nation’s chief terror threat. This was a thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and destroy all political opposition to the Biden regime in the U.S. But now he can’t ignore the jihad threat any longer, and with attacks likely in the U.S., he has to pretend he is on top of the situation. In reality, the FBI has been in denial about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat for years, and almost certainly will not be able to stop future jihad attacks in the U.S., because it is still so ideologically blinkered and politicized that it doesn’t even know what to look for.

FBI Director Wray warns terror threat to Americans at ‘whole other level’ amid Hamas-Israel conflict

by Adam Shaw and Brooke Singman, Fox News, October 31, 2023:

…”The reality is that the terrorism threat has been elevated throughout 2023, but the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole other level,” Wray told lawmakers on the Senate Homeland Security Committee….

“We assess that the actions of Hamas and its allies will serve as an inspiration, the likes of which we haven’t seen since ISIS launched its so-called caliphate several years ago,” Wray said. “In just the past few weeks, multiple foreign terrorist organizations have called for attacks against Americans and the West.”…

“We also cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or another foreign terrorist organization may exploit the current conflict to conduct attacks here on our own soil,” he said.

He also pointed to concerns about threats posed by Hezbollah as well as Iran – which supports both Hamas and Hezbollah – and noted their histories of support of terror and criminal operations.

“Given that disturbing history, we are keeping a close eye on what impact recent events may have on those groups’ intentions here in the United States and how those intentions might evolve,” he said, citing cyber-targeting of American interests by Iran and other foes….

A DHS spokesperson said this week that the U.S. remains in a heightened threat environment and recent events reinforce that.

“As the Israel-Hamas conflict continues, we have seen an increase in reports of threats against Jewish, Muslim, and Arab communities and institutions. Lone offenders, motivated by a range of violent ideologies, pose the most likely threat. We urge the public to stay vigilant and to promptly report suspicious activity to local law enforcement,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED VIDEO: This Week in Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

BRAVO: House PASSES Israel Stand Alone Bill For Emergency Aid

New York Times Provides Hamas with Information on IDF Positions in Gaza

The ‘occupation’ narrative hides the shared Hamas-PA goal

Czech Defense Minister Calls For Leaving the UN

Muslim cleric quotes genocidal hadith in which Muhammad calls on Muslims to murder Jews

France: Hospital gets three false bomb threats, ‘It’s going to blow, Allahu akbar!’

UK: Pro-Hamas leader of Muslim group with which government has ‘zero engagement’ advises authorities on ‘hate crime’

European Union has given $717,000,000 to the ‘Palestinians’ since 2021, including $236,000,000 to Gaza

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

Hamas Terrorist: We Shot Crying Children ‘Until We Didn’t Hear Noise Anymore’ thumbnail

Hamas Terrorist: We Shot Crying Children ‘Until We Didn’t Hear Noise Anymore’

By The Geller Report

These philistines are not human.

Hamas terrorist: Shot crying children ‘until we didn’t hear noise anymore’

By: JNS, November 1, 2023:

“The mission was simply to kill,” Hamas operative Omar Sami Marzuk Abu Rusha told Shin Bet interrogators.

Hamas operative Omar Sami Marzuk Abu Rusha during a Shin Bet interrogation. Credit: Israel Security Agency.Hamas operative Omar Sami Marzuk Abu Rusha during a Shin Bet interrogation. Credit: Israel Security Agency.

The Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) released an interrogation video on Wednesday of a captured Hamas terrorist, who participated in the Oct. 7 massacre in Kfar Aza, a kibbutz in southern Israel.

“The mission was simply to kill. We weren’t supposed to kidnap, just kill,” Hamas operative Omar Sami Marzuk Abu Rusha told Shin Bet agents. “To kill every person we see and come back.”

A Hamas terrorist who took part in the Kfar Aza massacre on October 7 in his interrogation: “Our mission was to kill everyone we saw, and then to come back.”

Hamas is ISIS. Hamas must be defeated. pic.twitter.com/yXHnywMPNL

— Israel Nitzan🇮🇱 (@IsraelNitzan) November 1, 2023

Asked if he was told to murder women and children as well, Abu Rusha said: “Yes.”

“They told us that all the settlers were soldiers. There were soldiers among them. Kill every single one you see,” he said.

A Hamas terrorist who took part in the Kfar Aza massacre on October 7 in his interrogation: “Our mission was to kill everyone we saw, and then to come back.”

In the six-minute interrogation tape, the terrorist calmly describes murdering young children hiding in a safe room.

“We heard sounds of young children,” he said. “The cries of young children. A young child, something like that.”

“I shot and Abu Kamil shot. We shot at the door,” he added. “Until we didn’t hear noise anymore.”

The Shin Bet agent asked him what the difference was between him, given he had an order to kill from Hamas’s Nukhba commando forces and ISIS.

“In the things the interrogator showed me, there is no difference, in the things I was shown,” Abu Rusha admitted. “I saw videos worse than ISIS. The ones the interrogator showed me.”

Read full article.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED POST ON X:

More on Ibrahim Bharmal, EDITOR of the Harvard Law Review at @Harvard_Law & @Kennedy_School. See him physically and verbally assault an Israeli student during an anti-Israel protest on campus. Read his NEW Canary Mission Profile: https://t.co/FhgNNbpME6 pic.twitter.com/C49vYh2m9e

— Canary Mission (@canarymission) November 1, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congress Introduces MEF-Inspired Legislation Against Hamas and Campus Antisemitism

BRAVO: House PASSES Israel Stand Alone Bill For Emergency Aid

Another Biden Catastrophe: Russia’s Shocking Exit from Key Nuclear Treaty

Latest From the Enemy Left: “MAGA and Christian Nationalism Bigger Threat to America Than Hamas Could Ever Be”

China Removes Israel From Maps, China-Owned TikTok Promotes Massive Anti-Israel Bias

Ivy League Among Top Recipients of $8.5 Billion Islamic Funding

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

Weekend Read – The Gem of Unplanned Pregnancy Options: ‘Open’ Adoption thumbnail

Weekend Read – The Gem of Unplanned Pregnancy Options: ‘Open’ Adoption

By Terri Marcroft

Editors’ Note: The following essay is the third of three by Theresa Marcroft published in The Prickly Pear. This series is an important contribution addressing the crisis of unplanned pregnancies in America. The first essay, Weekend Read: How Abortion Hurts Women, presents the very real long-term physical and mental health dangers prior abortion causes, largely ignored and denied by pro-abortion advocates. The second essay,   Weekend Read: The Harsh Reality Behind Single Parenting, discusses the very difficult job of raising a child or children without a spouse, predominantly as single mothers. The high percentage of poor outcomes for children of single mothers, i.e., fatherless homes, is tragic and a major factor in the breakdown of America’s social and cultural fabric. The Prickly Pear is proud to publish Ms. Marcroft’s presentation of a win-win solution, truly The Gem of Unplanned Pregnancy Options: ‘Open’ Adoption.

This article is very timely in that November is National Adoption Month – truly a celebration of life and the essential role of loving families in the lives of all children. 

Introduction

Each year, almost three million American women face an unplanned pregnancy. When a pregnancy is unwanted, and those involved are not ready, willing or able to parent, that is a dilemma with no perfect solution.

The obvious options for one facing an unplanned pregnancy are abortion, parenting and adoption, but few among us know much about the pros and cons of those three options. Let’s explore that third option.

Adoption Practices of the Past

What most people know today about adoption is based on preconceptions rooted in the past. Before the 1990s, most US adoptions were ‘closed’: the woman who gave birth was not allowed any information about the adoptive family. She was not permitted to have any ongoing relationship with her child, and vice versa. In many cases, the adoption and the very existence of this new person were carefully guarded secrets, and all involved shared an unspoken pact never mention it again.

Some adoptions were closed as a way to protect the privacy of the birth mother, as well as the birth father and their families. Closed adoption meant no fear that the child could someday find them and ask questions or interfere with their lives.

In those days of closed adoption, the decision to place or to parent typically was not made by the pregnant woman herself: She was often forced into choosing adoption by her own parents who didn’t want the embarrassment. “What would the neighbors say?” The pregnant girl was sent far away to live with a distant relative until the baby was delivered and “given up.” Then things could return to “normal.”

Sometimes a closed adoption was the preference of the couple adopting because they wanted to pretend that the child was theirs from conception onward. The adopted child was often not told that they were adopted. He or she grew up assuming—or being told—that their story was no different than any other child born to any other couple. But the adopted child knows that something is off. It’s just hard to pinpoint exactly what. Since families are not good at keeping secrets, the adoptee would usually learn the truth eventually. With that revelation comes a tidal wave of feelings of betrayal: “My whole life has been a lie!” “My parents did this to me??”

Secrecy was the hallmark of closed adoptions. And secrets are nearly impossible to keep.

Whether the closed aspect of the adoption was the will of the birth family or the adoptive family, it was a path often chosen out of fear—a fear that being honest would somehow result in rejection, shame, confusion or disapproval. For a myriad of reasons, the adopted child’s true story was buried and replaced with a carefully crafted tale.

As a result:

1. The woman who placed her baby was never able to grieve. Imagine going through the trauma of parting with your child and never being able to talk it out, receive needed help, or heal. She was not able to know the next chapter in her baby’s life or to stay in touch and see how her baby fared in the new family she made possible. Nor did that new family even acknowledge her—or the gift she gave them.
The story just ended, abruptly and without any closure.

2. Many adopted children eventually feel a desire to find and connect with the birth parents. All children want to know where they came from. It is an innate curiosity that causes children to want to know their story. For many, some milestone in their lives sparks the search. It might be their wedding, the birth of their first child, or the marriage of a child. Many search and wonder for years; many never find any results or closure. Many adoptees only find their birth parents after a great deal of research and effort. That long and painful search is a by-product of closed adoptions.

The search often leads them to sealed adoption records. Each state has different laws about opening these records. Recently, several states have chosen to “unseal” records. Other states do not allow adoption records to be unsealed and released. Sometimes the records are forever lost—destroyed in fires or moves. In these cases, the curious adoptee is left with many unanswered questions that can be painful for the rest of his/her life.

That is trauma layered on top of trauma. It’s no wonder that adoption horror stories abound.

We have come a long way since then.

We now know the harm that was caused by the practice of forced, closed, secret adoptions. Thank God those days are gone! Adoption has successfully evolved into something entirely different today.

A massive shift has taken place. The practice of adoption has completely flipped — from the closed adoptions of the 1950s, 60s and 70s to the almost entirely open adoptions of today. If there is such a thing as a “typical” infant adoption scenario in the US today, that new norm nationwide is called open adoption.

What does open adoption really mean?

It is actually a continuum of openness: Each family navigates the waters until they find the balance of contact and distance that works for them. Visits and privacy are a tradeoff, and geographical distance between the parties will require more work and planning to stay connected. Some want more contact, gathering regularly to celebrate holidays in person. Others are satisfied to exchange letters, photos, or social media posts.

At the core of open adoption is a world of possibilities. There are an infinite number of ways to structure any ongoing relationship. And adoption is no different. A continuum of options are possible. And when a family structures these new relationships in the way that works for all, inside the limits of their comfort zone, they know it. They can feel it.

Open adoption means ‘possibility’…

For the Birth Parents

Open adoption means peace of mind. The birthparents can rest assured, knowing that their child is thriving with parents who overcame many hurdles before welcoming their new child into the family. Ideally, the transparency and openness of the adoption allows the birth parents to stay informed about the child’s progress. It often includes ongoing communication between the birth family and the adoptive family. In some cases, this is worked out gradually and informally. If both the birth parent and the adoptive family want an increased level of contact and visits, they can arrange that. In other cases, adoption agencies actually require a set schedule for birth family visits to be included in the adoption contract. Sometimes there are negative experiences when the birth family and adoptive family have different expectations and cannot find a compromise. Open adoption works best with open communication.

For the Adoptee

Open adoption means that the child’s questions are answered.

The child will first ask, “Why did my mom choose adoption for me?” The reasons for that choice are as different as each woman who places her child, but the theme running through those stories is that the birthmother was not able to parent at that time in her life, and she loved her child so much that she wanted the best for him or her. She chose to place the child’s best interests above her own. It’s a brave and selfless act of pure love. Learning that the decision was extremely difficult and made from a place of love is very reassuring for a child.

For the Adoptive Parents

Open adoption means information.

Some adoptive parents are lucky enough to share the last few months of the pregnancy with the birth parents—they get to know them and gather some insight into their stories. They can also access genetic and medical information to best care for their child in the future. They will be able to provide doctors with fuller history so they can then choose the right course of treatment. It’s also possible to gather and preserve cord blood at the birth. It’s also helpful to know ancestral histories of various medical and genetic conditions and proclivities, such as alcoholism, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, heart conditions, and certain types of cancer. All of that can be very helpful.

There is no ideal level of openness. As with any ongoing relationship, work and communication are required in order to strike the balance that works well for the adoptive family and the birth parents.

The basic idea underlying open adoption today is transparency. In most cases today, children are aware of their background stories. They know they were adopted and why they were adopted. Their birth mother chose adoption at a time in her life when she felt she could not parent; she was not ready, willing, or able (perhaps all three) to parent well. So, she made the very difficult decision to go forward with her pregnancy, then thoughtfully chose parents for her baby, and then intentionally placed her child with them. The reward for making that huge sacrifice is knowing that she has helped to create a family, and being able to watch her child grow up, maybe even be treated like a member of the family.

Even when a woman doesn’t face pressure to place her child and the adoption is 100% her decision, it’s still quite challenging. Most birth mothers describe adoption as the most excruciating, difficult decision they have ever made, but one that they knew, with all their heart, was right.

These women go on to describe the rewards of seeing their baby raised in a happy, stable family. The ability to stay in touch and remain a part of the child’s life is one of the key benefits of open adoption. Observing the child’s upbringing is also a large part of the healing process for birth parents. After a necessary initial grieving period, the visits and other forms of communication can be helpful to both the birth mother and birth father, knowing that their child is well-loved.

In addition to providing transparency, another pillar of open adoption is ongoing communication. The open relationship makes this possible, but whether or not all parties opt to communicate regularly is up to those involved. This usually evolves over time. Some need distance in the first few years after the birth; some bond quickly and become a new extended family sooner. There are many possible scenarios, and there’s no “right” way to do this. Each open adoption is as unique as the humans that comprise it.

The bottom line is open adoption offers options. It offers connection. It offers answers. The people involved can forge the path and set the new traditions that work for them because everything is possible. Staying in touch is possible. Communication is possible. Loving relationships are possible.

And in this world, who would turn down one more person to love them? And one more person to love?

Summary

Current US culture presents two choices for women with unintended pregnancies with two choices and paints an unrealistic picture of both: abortion as a safe, quick, painless answer, and (often single) parenting as a glamorous, empowering adventure. Then we dupe women into believing this mirage of “solutions” by withholding the rest of the story.

But there is another choice!

More widespread education about open adoption is needed to enlighten the public so they can better advise, assist, and advocate for open adoption. Understanding the upsides of adoption done well, and openly is key. It has changed drastically in the last three decades and is a much healthier practice today. Understanding the downsides of both abortion and single parenting is another piece of the unplanned pregnancy puzzle.

The women and men who choose adoption for their babies do so out of a powerful love. They do work through the difficult times and often emerge stronger on the other side, proud of themselves and ready to embark on life’s next journey. Often the birth parents are happy that their child is being raised by people who are ready, willing, and able to parent well. And, they are often quite happy to become a part of the family they’ve helped create.

*****

Terri Marcroft is an adoptive Mom to her 24-year old daughter. Terri is the Founder and Executive Director of Unplanned Good, an organization dedicated to promoting open adoption for women facing unplanned pregnancy.

For more information, please see unplannedgood.org/. The article above is a condensed excerpt from her book Pro-Choice Pro-Adoption: It’s Time for a Loving, Positive Response to Unplanned Pregnancy published in 2022.

Photo Credit: Pixabay Free Stock

TAKE ACTION

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

Ranked-Choice Voting Is The Monster Under The Bed Of American Elections thumbnail

Ranked-Choice Voting Is The Monster Under The Bed Of American Elections

By Shawn Fleetwood

Ranked-choice voting ‘is a scheme of the Left to disenfranchise voters and elect more Democrats,’ a new report found.

Democrats are using ranked-choice voting (RCV) to benefit their party and disenfranchise voters in elections across the country, a new report provided to The Federalist found.

Published by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), the new analysis unearths how Democrats use the complexities associated with RCV to diminish confidence in elections among U.S. voters. Under RCV, often dubbed “rigged-choice voting” by its critics, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.

This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

While both major political parties have a history of promoting RCV, it’s primarily Democrats who are pushing states and localities to adopt the practice for future elections. As noted by FGA, of the 74 pro-RCV bills introduced in state legislatures this past year, 57 “had only Democrat sponsors.” Meanwhile, “just eight percent of the total bills received bipartisan support,” with Republicans introducing 16 of the 17 bills opposing ranked-choice voting.

“Both the number of bills supportive and opposed to ranked-choice voting saw a large uptick in 2023,” the report reads. “Part of the reason for this increase is legislators have seen the system allow less popular Democrats beat more popular Republicans in federal races in both Maine and Alaska.”

While RCV proponents often claim the system “guarantees that elected officials receive majority support from the electorate,” election outcomes in Alaska and Maine — both of which have adopted RCV — show the exact opposite is true.

In Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola won the state’s at-large congressional seat last year even though “nearly 60 percent of voters [cast] their ballots for a Republican.” As noted by FGA, this race also saw nearly 15,000 votes discarded due to so-called “ballot exhaustion.” The term “ballot exhaustion” is used to describe when voters select only one candidate on their ballot, and those ballots are tossed because their first choice didn’t win a majority in the first round.

Of the nearly 15,000 “exhausted” ballots thrown out in Alaska’s special congressional election, more than 11,000 were from voters who “voted for only one Republican candidate and no one else,” according to the report. RCV also played a major role in helping Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski win reelection during the 2022 midterms, which reportedly saw the “lowest voter turnout percentage on record.”

Election outcomes contradicting the desires of voters were also documented in a 2018 Maine congressional race. In that election, then-incumbent GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin lost to Democrat Jared Golden despite Poliquin winning the most votes in the first round of voting. According to FGA, more than 8,000 ballots were deemed “exhausted” and effectively thrown out.

“These ballots are not just pieces of paper, each is connected to a voter and his or her preference,” the report reads. “By throwing away these ballots, ranked-choice voting is erasing their opinion and leaving their voice unheard in the democratic system.”

But discarded ballots are just one of the many problems associated with RCV. In jurisdictions that employ RCV, delayed election results and errors have become the norm. During New York City’s 2021 Democrat mayoral primary, for example, it took “a week of counting and 11 rounds of tabulations” before city officials determined that “135,000 test ballots had been counted by mistake.” It took nearly a month and eight rounds of counting before a winner was ultimately declared.

Voter confusion about how RCV works has also presented its challenges. After using the system for a June 20 primary election, officials in Arlington, Virginia, opted not to use the practice for its upcoming fall elections, “pointing to confusion about the process” among voters and “concerns about whether outreach efforts were translating to diverse support for the new system.”

FGA concluded its report by calling on lawmakers to follow the lead of states such as Florida and Tennessee by banning the use of RCV in future elections.

“This complicated and confusing form of counting votes is not a non-partisan solution to give voters greater voice,” the report reads. “It is a scheme of the Left to disenfranchise voters and elect more Democrats.”

Other states that have banned RCV in recent years include South DakotaIdaho, and Montana.

*****

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

Image Credit: Nast cartoon on Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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

The Average Cost of Public School Education Is 58% More Than Private School thumbnail

The Average Cost of Public School Education Is 58% More Than Private School

By James D. Agresti

The average cost of private schools is a vital fact for understanding issues like school choice and public school spending. This is because it provides a market-based comparison to the cost of government schools. Yet, the U.S. Department of Education hasn’t published an estimate for the average cost of private K–12 schools since 1995.

To fill this decades-long gap, Just Facts conducted extensive research to develop a methodology that reliably measures private school spending. Beyond analyzing academic papers and government reports, Just Facts performed data checks and corresponded with the Department of Education and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to ensure accuracy.

Applying this method to the latest available data, the average inflation-adjusted cost of private K–12 schools in the 2019–20 school year was $9,709 per student. In contrast, the cost for public schools was $17,013 per student—or 75% more than private schools.

Public schools have a disproportionate number of students with disabilities, who cost more to educate than other students. Accounting for this difference, the average cost of educating children in public schools is now 58% greater than in private schools.

However, the cost premium of public schools is almost certainly larger than 58%. This is because government data on public school spending excludes some key items.

Coupled with data on student outcomes, these findings have major implications for the state of the public education system and how to improve it.

Historical Data

In a 1995 working paper, the Department of Education (DOE) estimated that “total expenditures for private schools in 1991–92 (including operating expenses and capital) were between $18.0 and $19.4 billion,” and the cost per student was “between $3,350 and $3,600.”

For the same school year, the DOE reported that public schools spent an average of $5,626 per student.

Comparing those figures, the average cost of public school education in 1991–92 was about 56–68% more than private school.

Since then, the DOE has published the average full tuition for private K–12 schools in 2011–12, but there is a significant difference between this figure and actual costs. That’s because full tuition, or the “sticker price,” is “the highest annual tuition charged for a full-time student.” The actual amounts paid by individuals are often much lower because they receive discounts for reasons such as having low income, siblings in the school, or a parent who is a teacher.

Since 1992, inflation-adjusted average public school spending per student has risen by 47%, and the DOE hasn’t published new data on private school spending. Thus, a fresh comparison of the cost differential between public and private schools is needed.

Just Facts’ Methodology

To determine the cost of private schools, Just Facts measures all income to them, including tuition payments, charitable donations, and government spending on private school programs. This is accomplished by summing federal data on:

All of the data and calculations are available in this spreadsheet. The bottom line result is that the average inflation-adjusted cost of private K–12 education in the 2019–20 school year was $9,709 per student.

This compares to the DOE’s figure of $17,013/student for public schools—or 75% more than private schools.

Incidentally, 75% isn’t far from the DOE’s estimate of a 56–68% cost premium for public schools in the 1991–92 school year.

Beyond that gut-level check, Just Facts corresponded with federal agencies, analyzed academic publications, and tested its methodology by using it to calculate total expenditures for private schools in the same 1991–92 school year that the DOE examined. This yielded a figure of $16.2 billion, or 10–16% lower than the DOE’s estimate of $18.0 to $19.4 billion.

The 10–16% differential accords with the following statement from the DOE’s working paper: “We would be surprised if improved data changed our overall estimate of total expenditures on private education by more than perhaps 10 or 15%.”

Some of the stated shortcomings of the DOE paper’s methodology are as follows:

  • “The main area of concern in the data for Catholic elementary and secondary schools is the response rate: each had a response rate far below 100%. (The response rate for the elementary survey was just above 50%, and for the secondary survey it was about 57%.)”
  • “In addition, our use of region as a proxy for geographic variation may be somewhat crude.”
  • “The principal caveat that needs to be attached to our estimates is that we are uncertain about the specific expenditures school officials included in their responses to the survey items we relied on in our analysis.”
  • “Nor do we know whether most schools responded to the survey items on the basis of a formal school budget or on the basis of less formal materials.”

Students with Disabilities

Per-pupil spending on students with disabilities is roughly 1.9 times that of typical students. Because a disproportionate share of students with disabilities are enrolled in regular public schools, this increases public school spending relative to private schools.

In 2019–20, students with disabilities comprised 1% of students in regular private schools and 14% of students in regular public schools. After adjusting for this difference, the 75% cost premium for public schools declines to 58%.

Unmeasured Costs

The cost premium for public schools is likely greater than 58% because the DOE’s data on public school spending doesn’t account for certain expenses. These include:

  • state government spending on administration.
  • the unfunded liabilities of pensions for government employees.
  • the costs of post-employment non-pension benefits (like health insurance) for government employees.

Such costs are common in public schools and rare in private ones.

The State of Public Education

The performance of schools has major consequences for the well-being of children, as well as the fabric of the nation. The father of the U.S. public education system, Horace Mann, was profoundly aware of these stakes but failed to foresee how his vision would unfold. In 1841, he declared that public schools were “the greatest discovery ever made by man,” and if they were “worked with the efficiency” of which they were capable:

nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete; the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged; men would walk more safely by day; every pillow would be more inviolable by night; property, life, and character held by a stronger tenure; all rational hopes respecting the future brightened.

Reality has played out very differently than Mann predicted. Even though inflation-adjusted spending per public school student has risen by about 43 times since 1885, public schools are now spending an average of $343,663 per classroom per year:

  • only 37% of U.S. residents aged 16 and older can correctly answer a question that requires basic logic, addition, and division.
  • only 22% of the college-bound high school students who take the ACT exam meet its college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).
  • two-thirds to three-quarters of all young adults in the U.S. are unqualified for military service because of poor physical fitness, weak educational skills, illegal drug use, medical conditions, or criminal records.
  • the drug overdose death rate has quintupled since 2000, and if it remains at the current level, one in every 40 people in the U.S. will ultimately die of a drug overdose.
  • 15-year-old U.S. students rank 31st among 37 developed nations in math, even though the U.S. spends an average of 38% more per K-12 student than other developed nations.

Public schools cannot be logically blamed for the entirety of this ruin because many other factors may be involved. However, public schools play a role—and often a major one—in all of these outcomes. Hence, there is clearly room for improvement.

Competition & School Choice

One of the most effective and time-tested ways to improve products and services is competition. Explaining why this is so, the textbook Economics: Private and Public Choice states:

Competition is a disciplining force for both buyers and sellers. In a competitive environment, producers must provide goods at a low cost and serve the interests of consumers; if they don’t, other suppliers will. … This process leads to improved products and production methods and directs resources toward projects that create more value. It is a powerful stimulus for economic progress.

In accord with that principle, numerous academic papers provide evidence of the benefits of competition in wide-ranging industries.

Likewise, the academic serial work Handbook of Research on School Choice states:

Much of the debate over school choice is based on the premise that there is a public monopoly over the provision of schooling and that schools are inefficient, in part, because of the absence of competition. If families could be treated as consumers and had the right to freely choose which kind of education they would prefer for their children, choice advocates assert that both government and non-government schools would improve….

Based on anecdotes, some people claim that competition doesn’t work in the sphere of education, but comprehensive facts like the following show that it does:

  • At least 22 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results.
  • A gold-standard experimental study published by the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2011 found that high-risk male youth who won a school choice lottery in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina “commit about 50% less crime across several different outcome measures and scalings of crime by severity.”
  • Among 23 experimental (or quasi-experimental) studies that have been conducted on the academic outcomes of students who experience school choice:
    • 13 found statistically significant positive effects.
    • 6 found no statistically significant effects.
    • 3 found statistically significant negative effects.

The Money Drainage Myth

While ignoring all evidence on the benefits of school choice, teachers unions and politicians like Bernie Sanders argue that school choice harms public schools by draining funds from them. The polar opposite is true.

Private school choice generally increases public school funding per student, which is the primary measure of education funding. As explained by Stephen Cornman, a statistician with the DOE’s National Center for Education Statistics, per-pupil spending is “the gold standard in school finance.”

That’s why a school with only 1,000 students would be better funded than a school with 2,000 students if they both received the same total funding. It’s the funding per student that matters, not the funding per school.

Private school choice boosts per-pupil funding in public schools because the public schools no longer educate the students who go to private schools—which spend much less per student than public schools. This leaves additional funding for the students who remain in public schools.

For each non-disabled public school student who moves to a private school, the cost to educate her declines from an average of about $16,000/year to $10,000. This leaves an extra $6,000 in funds for the public school to spend on the remaining students. The savings can be even greater if the law caps the amount of money for private schools to less than $10,000.

What about the costs of students who are already enrolled in private schools? School choice initiatives are typically designed to help children whose parents can’t afford private school. Thus, school choice laws often target benefits to such families and limit benefits for richer households. Even though some of the benefits go to students who are already in private schools, the net result has been that most school choice programs save money. This can be used to increase funding per student in public schools.

Certain school costs (like building maintenance) are fixed in the short term. Thus, the savings of educating fewer students occurs in steps. This means that school choice can temporarily decrease the funding per student in some public schools, but this is brief and slight because only 8% of public school spending is for operations and maintenance.

Tax & Debt Implications

Instead of increasing per-student funding for public schools, the money saved through school choice could be used to reduce taxes or pay down government debt.

In 2021, federal, state, and local governments spent $745 billion on K–12 education, costing every household in the U.S. an average of $5,764. Over the average U.S. lifespan of 76 years, this amounts to $438,000 per household.

Because the average cost of educating children in public schools is now 58% greater than in private schools, taxes, and debt could be significantly reduced by allowing parents to put their children in schools that cost less and provide better education.

Conclusion

Compared to private schools, public schools are costly and ineffective. An array of facts indicates that this situation—which poses a dire threat to the entire nation—can be improved by competition from school choice.

Although choice could help students, parents, and taxpayers, it would harm teachers’ unions by depriving them of dues and power. This is because private schools are less likely to have unions than public ones.

In turn, this financially harms Democratic politicians, political action committees, and related organizations, which have received more than $230 million in reported donations from the two largest teachers’ unions since 1990. Unions also give many unreported donations to Democratic Party causes.

The National Education Association has sent an open letter to Democrats stating that “opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA,” and the 2020 Democratic Party Platform opposes private school choice. Nevertheless, public school teachers are more likely to place their own children in private schools than other parents, and leading Democrats like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren personally attended and/or sent their own children to private schools.

*****

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a research institute dedicated to publishing facts about public policies and teaching research skills.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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