Truck This: Why I’m Leaving the Long-Haul Industry thumbnail

Truck This: Why I’m Leaving the Long-Haul Industry

By Christopher Wilcox

I’ve been a truck driver for over 20 years. I suppose I always knew I would be, ever since that career day in the third grade when among all the kids dressed like doctors and baseball players, there I stood dressed like Jerry Reed from Smokey and the Bandit. Pop culture in the 80s painted the picture of truckers as rugged men, wild and free, burdened by nothing except their own wanderlust. That romanticized version of the American truck driver still lingers in the back of my mind, but in recent years the burden of government regulation has proven to be greater than my desire to see what’s over the next hill.

Oppressive regulation in the trucking industry has been around almost as long as the iconic chrome bulldog on the hood of Mack trucks. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Federal Motor Carrier Act (FMCA) of 1935 during his first term. This gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), an agency originally formed to regulate railroads, the authority to regulate the burgeoning business of moving goods by tractor-trailer. The ICC ultimately decided which companies could haul certain goods, for whom, where, and what they could charge. The ICC even decided if new transportation companies could enter the market by requiring eager upstarts to prove their services were “needed.”

The only exemptions to these laws were in the agricultural sector. FDR and his horde of central planners did not want to cause an increase in food prices during a time when many Americans were already struggling to put food on the table. Never mind the tacit admission that the FMCA would raise prices on all other goods. This exemption had its own unintended consequences. While independent drivers, commonly referred to as wildcatters in driver slang, were not subject to the price floors previously mentioned, they were limited to hauling only agricultural goods. This limitation caused a significant logistical dilemma for wildcatters delivering in industrialized parts of the country and is largely responsible for the mythos of the outlaw truckers we all know today from music and film. Whether in an old country song from Red Sovine or Kurt Russell’s character in Big Trouble in Little China, such renegades are almost always hauling agricultural goods.

Thankfully, a trend towards deregulation began in the 1970s, and the cesspool of cronyism and perverse incentives created by FDR was substantially reined in with the FMCA of 1980. This is why we now see hundreds, if not thousands of company names sprawled along the sides of 53-foot trailers. Granted, we still have the ICC, though today it is known as the Department of Transportation, and any truck driver that has had to spend 10 hours at a scale house without a shower or a hot meal over a minor infraction of hours of service rules (another specter of the FMCA of 1935) will tell you it remains quite burdensome. But things are still better than they used to be.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues its misguided attempts to control an industry regulators know little to nothing about. But today’s attempts tend to focus more on something they understand even less than trucking: technology.

The electronic logging device (ELD) has been around since the late 1980s. The devices were first adopted by large nationwide fleets to simplify managing their plethora of drivers and eventually became a way to lower insurance costs. Manufacturers and employers claimed the devices prevented drivers from driving longer than legally allowed, therefore reducing the number of tractor-trailer-related crashes. It was under the latter premise that the DOT mandated that all trucks be equipped with ELDs no later than the end of 2017. Unfortunately, fatal accidents involving tractor-trailers have seen a recent increase following a sharp decline. This correlation suggests that mandating ELDs has not had the promised or intended safety improvements.

More recently, environmental regulations requiring manufacturers to reduce emissions gave us the diesel particulate filter (DPF), an exhaust treatment system that replaces a standard muffler. While there is no current federal mandate requiring a DPF, the filters are required by the 2008 California Statewide Truck and Bus Rule, which has incentivized many nationwidwie fleets to adopt them. The problem with DPFs is the filter system clogs. A lot.

When DPFs go down, trucks roll to a stop. Truckers report having to have a DPF serviced as often as every 5,000 miles, which means lots of lost productivity and stranded cargo. I’ve had four breakdowns over the past two years, and three were due to my DPF. A tow truck driver I spoke to on one of those occasions told me half of his business comes from malfunctioning DPFs. Repairs are a specialized affair, and replacements can cost up to $2,000. When my truck isn’t moving, I’m not earning. And these regulators have required that my truck stand still far too often.

Next up on the government’s list of ways to make truckers’ lives miserable are proposed speed limiters. Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, wants to limit all tractor-trailers to the same speed. Imagine being stuck behind a pair of tractor-trailers side by side, who can’t speed up to pass each other. It’s relatively rare right now, but it will become the norm. Every single interstate nationwide will be populated by moving roadblocks, inspiring road rage and blocking critical services. What happens when the fire truck or ambulance is stuck behind these unbreakable pairs?

However well-intentioned these rules and regulations might be, it’s clear that no one is consulting with the long-haul truckers about the totally foreseeable bad outcomes. The great problem with all central planning is that regulators lack local knowledge, and are not inclined to speak to the people living with the consequences of their decrees. Probably because we would tell them what idiots they are.

The last two decades I’ve spent traversing this beautiful nation have, by and large, been a wonderful experience. I have countless stories to share with other drivers over a cup of coffee at my favorite fuel stops or with my more stationary friends over a cold beer. I wouldn’t trade the things I’ve seen, the binds I’ve been in, or the successes I enjoyed, for anything. But the burden that has been laid on these old tired shoulders by bureaucrats and central planners has become more than I’m willing to bear. I’ll always yearn for the open road, but now I’ll have to satisfy that wanderlust in my pick-up truck. I’m pulling the parking brake on this Peterbilt for the last time.

*****

This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

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

To Whom Do America’s Children Belong?

By Elizabeth Grace Matthew

This week on the West Coast, the San Bernardino Superior Court blocked a policy requiring schools to notify students’ parents if their children change gender identities, names, and/or pronouns. According to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, this ruling “protects kids from harm” by “ensuring the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of inclusivity.”

According to this worldview, in which schools form an intimate attachment with students that by law excludes these minors’ parents, public schools and by extension, the state—not parents—are the best and most natural custodians of children’s well-being.

Meanwhile, in the Midwest, Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis-Gates—who opposes school choice and has called private schools racist and fascist while maintaining that her own children attend Chicago public schools—was recently found to be sending her son to a Catholic high school. In defending this hypocrisy, Davis-Gates stated that youth in Chicago’s poorer, mostly minority neighborhoods have “unfair choices,” given that “in many of our schools on the South side and the West side, the course offerings are very marginal and limited.” Chicago Public Schools spend over $29,000 per student, yet in 2022 80% of students failed to meet reading standards and 85% failed to meet math standards.

According to this worldview, in which school choice is anathema for those without the resources to exercise it sans governmental assistance but perfectly acceptable for those with resources, public schools are the only appropriate place for poor and predominantly minority students. Parents with enough income, by contrast, are apparently permitted to buy parental rights, and then make the same sound educational decisions for their children that parents with fewer resources would make if those like Davis-Gates would only let them.

These phenomena—state-employed adults validated for keeping secrets with other people’s children, and low-income children stuck in failing schools while those that keep them there access better for their own children—reveal that progressive educational activists fundamentally see other people’s children as wards of the state.

This puts such activists profoundly out of step with the bipartisan majority of American parents, who want: (1) to know how their children are identifying in school, and (2) universal school choice.

Given America’s rapidly decreasing fertility rate, and the overwhelming concentration of unmarried non-mothers in the progressive wing of the Democratic party that advocates against these parental interests, one can be forgiven for wondering if we could solve several problems at once were such women to have kids after all.

Not only would the fertility rate tick up, but those invested in children’s “rights” to gender themselves as they see fit without parental knowledge and failing public schools’ “rights” to exert unearned dominion over America’s children would suddenly have an equal stake in the ramifications of these dreadful policies. At least then, they could act in accordance with their alleged beliefs without coopting only other people’s children.

They mostly wouldn’t, though, since parenthood introduces  a reality principle unlike any other. And some of them might even be honest about that.

*****

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

Top Pro-Life Leaders Slam Trump for Calling Heartbeat Protections for Unborn ‘Terrible’ thumbnail

Top Pro-Life Leaders Slam Trump for Calling Heartbeat Protections for Unborn ‘Terrible’

By Mary Margaret Olohan

Former President Donald Trump is drawing fire from pro-life leaders for describing Florida’s heartbeat protections for the unborn as “terrible.”

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump told NBC’s new “Meet the Press” host, Kristen Welker, in an interview that aired Sunday. The former president was referring to Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing state legislation banning the abortions of babies after a heartbeat has been detected.

Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, and Iowa all have passed similar laws, though Ohio’s and Iowa’s laws are held up in court. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia have almost completely banned abortion with limited exceptions, such as for preserving the life of the mother.

And to the chagrin of top pro-life groups, Trump also would not say whether he would support protections for babies after 15 weeks of gestation, suggesting that he would seek solutions to the abortion debate that both Republicans and Democrats could embrace.

“What’s going to happen is, you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months,” Trump said. “You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”

While Trump’s recent remarks have provoked concerns from pro-life groups that he does not support strong legislation protecting life, he has previously been heralded as the most pro-life president in American history—and he will always have the lasting legacy of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Trump also made history as the first president to attend the national March for Life in person, for appointing a slew of pro-life federal judges throughout his four years as president, for signing an executive order protecting infants born alive through botched abortions, and for significantly cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

But his newest comments sparked a strong response from pro-life leaders.

“Laws protecting the unborn are not a ‘terrible mistake,’” Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner said Sunday. “They are the hallmark of a just and moral society. Governors who protect life should be applauded, not attacked. And while we’re at it, men can’t become women. This is also based on a simple biological reality and one necessary for a just and moral society.”

Live Action’s founder and president, Lila Rose, decried Trump’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable” in a Sunday post on social media.

“Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning. Heartbeat laws have saved thousands of babies,” she said. “But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.’ Trump should not be the GOP nominee.”

The pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called for “every single candidate” to be “clear on how they plan to” save “the lives of children and serving mothers in need.”

“It begins with focusing on the extremes of the other side, and ambition and common sense on our own,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. “Anything later than a 15-week protection for babies in the womb (when science proves they can feel pain) as a national minimum standard makes no sense.”

CatholicVote President Brian Burch said that the former president’s remarks have “sparked concerns among Catholics over whether he is committed to leading on this issue in the way he did during his first term.”

“Pro-life Catholic voters helped deliver him the White House in 2016, and a record number of votes in 2020,” Burch warned. “He cannot expect to win again without these same voters. Any Republican presidential hopeful must draw a clear contrast to the extreme, taxpayer-funded, unlimited abortion agenda of [President] Joe Biden.”

Some, like American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling, pushed for conservatives to hold their fire and wait to hear what type of protections for the unborn that Trump supports.

“Let’s at least see what national limit he backs before the hysterical takes,” Schilling said in a tweet pointing out that Trump had appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Daily Wire host Michael Knowles similarly suggested that Trump has “been extremely pro-life (e.g., Dobbs, 1st POTUS to speak at March For Life)” and has “proved himself capable of winning at least 1 general election.”

“Doesn’t excuse bad answers, but actions speak louder than words,” Knowles said.

Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent pro-life activist and president and CEO of The Family Leader, argued that “when a leader doesn’t have convictions on the most basic right of all, the right to #life, this is what you get.”

“Ugh,” he continued. “The ‘let’s make a deal’ message isn’t a win for babies, and it won’t win the #POTUS.”

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh described Trump’s remark as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and also “stupid politically.”

“You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue,” Walsh said. “Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it. Defend life clearly powerfully and unequivocally. That’s the only way.”

Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal. His former vice president, Mike Pence, told The New York Times on Sunday: “Donald Trump continues to walk away from the pro-life legacy of our administration.”

“There’s no negotiating when it comes to the life of the unborn,” Pence said. “We will not rest, we will not relent, until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the nation.”

And DeSantis responded to Trump’s remarks in an interview Monday with Radio Iowa.

“Donald Trump may think it’s terrible. I think protecting babies with heartbeats is noble and just and I’m proud to have signed the heartbeat bill in Florida and I know Iowa has similar legislation,” the Florida governor said.

“I don’t know how you can even make the claim that you’re somehow pro-life if you’re criticizing states for enacting protections for babies that have heartbeats,” he added.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal 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.

FBI Had So Many Jan. 6 Plants It Lost Count thumbnail

FBI Had So Many Jan. 6 Plants It Lost Count

By Catherine Salgado

The latest news is that the FBI (otherwise known as the Federal Bureau of Immorality) had so many paid plants in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, that it lost count. The fedsurrection” is real, not a conspiracy theory.

It was an FBI plant that later testified to the innocence of the Kansas City Proud Boys (the FBI has also been accused of destroying evidence for the Proud Boys’ case). We have video footage from one undercover cop who mingled with the crowd that day and urged people on into the Capitol. Likely federal asset Ray Epps boasted that he had “orchestrated” Jan. 6. We know that the majority of protestors there that day were peaceful and that at least some if not most of the violent minority were also plants, or at least not Trump fans; MAGA protestors tried to intervene to stop the destruction, identifying the violent rioters as Antifa. Nancy Pelosi had a camera crew set up before the event.

It was a set-up to destroy Donald Trump and MAGA. Since then, innocent Jan. 6 prisoners have been imprisoned, tortured, and denied both their rights and basic necessities in jail.

“[InfoWars, Sept. 20] The former head of the FBI’s Washington D.C. field office, Steven D’Antuono, is blowing the whistle on the bureau’s countless number of paid informants who took part in the Jan. 6th debacle.

D’Antuono told the New York Post this week his field office had ‘Confidential Human Sources’ (CHS) embedded in the J6 crowd, but also explained ‘informants run by other field offices’ were taking part in the protest unbeknownst to him at the time…Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund previously told The Post the FBI ‘had at least 18 undercover agents in the crowd plus another 20 from the Department of Homeland Security’ in addition to the unknown number of CHSs.”

Jan. 6 really was a fedsurrection.

TAKE ACTION

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

4 Ways Washington’s Spending Spree Caused Inflation With Trillions in Waste, Fraud thumbnail

4 Ways Washington’s Spending Spree Caused Inflation With Trillions in Waste, Fraud

By David Ditch

Americans are justifiably unhappy with the state of the economy.

The inflation figures for August took a turn for the worse—meaning, families have now lost $5,100 in purchasing power since President Joe Biden entered the White House.

In addition to the burden of inflation, rising interest rates are making home mortgages unaffordable, pushing the American dream out of reach for millions.

While month-to-month economic numbers tell part of the story, a new report from The Heritage Foundation explains how Washington’s reckless spending pushed the economy to this tipping point. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

The special report, “The Road to Inflation: How an Unprecedented Federal Spending Spree Created Economic Turmoil,” reveals that Congress passed an astonishing $7.5 trillion in new spending between 2020 and 2022—or more than $57,000 per household.

Pushing such an unprecedented amount of deficit spending had predictable consequences.

>>>Read the full report here: “The Road to Inflation

At a time when supply chains were strained by the COVID-19 pandemic and harmful government-imposed lockdowns, throwing more money at a lower volume of goods and services could only drive prices up.

It would be one thing if the spending spree had been made up of good investments. Unfortunately, most of the initiatives were poorly designed, based on faulty economic reasoning and/or motivated by political opportunism.

The following are just four of the areas where the federal government misused trillions of dollars in taxpayer resources during the spending spree:

Welfare Expansion Causes World Record Fraud

At the start of the pandemic, Congress expanded eligibility and increased payments for the unemployment insurance program.

At the time, it was easy to predict that this would have negative consequences, incentivizing workers to actively seek joblessness or otherwise game the system to maximize their handouts.

Incredibly, even the most cynical analysis underestimated just how big a problem would result from this welfare expansion.

A combination of individual scammers and organized crime rings using identity fraud bilked the federal government for at least $100 billion, with upper-end estimates of $350 billion to $400 billion.

To put that in perspective, the Bernie Madoff scheme that generated extensive media coverage and numerous documentaries was worth $65 billion. (Naturally, the press is less interested in publicizing fraud enabled by a welfare program.)

Slush Funds for State, and Local Governments

In addition to increased federal payments for mass transit, education, and Medicaid, the spending spree included a whopping $500 billion in few-strings-attached handouts to state and local governments.

The first batch of this money, $150 billion, was approved as protection against potential tax revenue declines at the start of the pandemic. However, it soon became clear that most areas were not experiencing a tax decline, and the total amount of revenue loss was much smaller than expected.

Despite that reality, Democrats passed an additional $350 billion in slushy funds.

Since there was no revenue gap, state and local governments blew through their second round of handouts with inflationary check-cutting, record-setting levels of corporate welfare, bailing out government-owned golf courses, tax credits for Hollywood studios, promoting tourism, special bonuses for government employees, and much more.

As with the unemployment insurance fraud, we will never know the total amount of money wasted on “relief” payments to state and local governments.

Teachers Unions Held Schools Hostage

Perhaps the most infuriating part of the spending spree took place in early 2021.

Amid a raging debate about reopening schools, with children receiving substandard educations, teachers unions were pressing to keep schools closed. That was part of a pressure campaign to give government-run K-12 schools a massive federal handout.

The Biden administration kowtowed to teachers unions, and it was later revealed that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention colluded with union officials on school-reopening guidance to help stack the deck.

In the end, Democrats approved $123 billion for public K-12 schools, rewarding the unions for holding schools hostage.

Since there was no pandemic-related need for such a huge amount of money, much of it went toward hiring sprees and raises for school employees.

Regrettably, the obscure nature of how funds were distributed means that we will likely never know what public schools did with that windfall.

Business Support Program Defrauded

The Paycheck Protection Program passed early in the pandemic, was designed to help businesses keep employees on the payroll during the lockdown-driven economic downturn.

However, the $835 billion program—with Congress intending to get money out the door quickly—suffered from a lack of guardrails. Hundreds of billions of dollars in spending were flagged for review. There were hundreds of billions of dollars in improper payments, and the volume of fraud overwhelmed the system.

While some violators (such as a man who used the program to buy a $57,000 Pokémon card) were caught, countless others got away scot-free.

Conclusion

In the wake of the spending spree, the national debt is now more than $33 trillion, or an average of $253,000 per household.

Ignoring the dangers of such an incomprehensible amount of debt, and ignoring the ongoing damage that elevated inflation is having on family finances, many in Washington are still determined to keep the federal gravy train rolling.

  • The pending set of appropriations bills is loaded with pork, including goodies for left-wing activist groups and frivolous recreational projects.
  • These bills also contain tens of billions in fraudulent budget gimmicks that hide spending.
  • Several other measures that would or could increase spending are also looming on the horizon, including the so-called farm bill (where most of the money goes to welfare programs), and supplemental appropriations that would throw tens of billions more at Ukraine and to leftist nonprofits that encourage illegal immigration.

It’s crucial for the American public to be on guard against politicians whose default response to most problems is to throw other people’s money around.

That has been a bad habit for many years, but now it has turned into a chronic addiction the country can’t afford.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal 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.

China’s Communist Party Infiltrates American K-12 Schools

By Robert Williams

The Chinese Communist Party has, or has had, ties to 143 school districts in the United States, including 20 near military bases, through its “Confucius Classrooms.” This means that Chinese state propaganda is probably now pretty much all over American K-12 classrooms.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has or has had, ties to 143 school districts in the United States, including 20 near military bases, through its “Confucius Classrooms,” according to a recent report, “Little Red Classrooms: China’s Infiltration of American K-12 Schools” by Parents Defending Education (PDE), a grassroots organization.

Confucius Classrooms, are, purportedly, “centers that teach Chinese language and culture.”

According to the book Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World, by Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg:

“Initiated in 2004 as an innocuous way to spread the Party narrative… ostensibly devoted to teaching Chinese language and promoting Chinese culture they are, as former propaganda chief Li Changchun put it, ‘an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.’”

In 2020, the US Department of State and the US Department of Education warned about the Confucius programs at American colleges and universities, and designated them as foreign agents:

“There is increasing evidence that they are also tools of malign PRC influence and dissemination of CCP propaganda… with the Beijing-based funding that comes with it, [they] can provide an institution with financial and other incentives to abstain from criticizing PRC policies, and may pressure the institution’s faculty to censor themselves.”

Attention to Confucius Institutes has mainly been centered around colleges and universities, but less so on K -12 education. This means that Chinese state propaganda is probably now pretty much all over American K-12 classrooms.

Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, said recently:

“The alarming evidence uncovered by our investigation should concern parents, educators, and policymakers alike. Families deserve to know who is influencing the American education system so that they can make informed choices about what their children are learning behind closed doors.

“The Trump administration took steps to rein in Confucius Institutes at colleges and universities. It is frightening, however, that no such transparency mandate exists at the K-12 level. Accordingly, it is imperative that elected officials at both the federal and state levels take immediate action to gauge the extent of these programs in order to ensure that American schoolchildren receive a high-quality education free from undue foreign interference.”

PDE observed that more than $17 million had been spent by the CCP on Confucius classrooms in the US between the years 2009-2023. According to PDE:

“Three of the nation’s top science and technology high schools have ties to Chinese government affiliated programs including Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has had ties to Tsinghua University High School—the high school affiliated with one of China’s top military schools, Tsinghua University…The CCP has had ties to school districts near 20 U.S. military bases. While the United States is not officially part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese state media has touted the work done by Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms to further the Chinese Communist Party’s global influence.”

According to Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, China’s propaganda in American K-12 schools works through omissions and praise of the Communist country that influences how children will see China as they grow up. Wood told the Daily Signal in a recent interview:

“Part of this is simply propagandizing the students so that they learn about China, but they don’t learn about the South China Sea, which is being heavily militarized by China. They don’t learn about the plight of the Uyghurs, the efforts to gauge in organ harvesting, the efforts to suppress Tibet.

“There are in China so many policies that violate human rights and which signal the aggressiveness of the regime there, which has its designs on becoming a worldwide hegemon, that need to be presented to Americans in a softer light.

“So what’s happening in these schools is that they learn that China is a benevolent institution, the heir of an ancient civilization that means nothing but goodwill to the rest of the world…

“And the notion that you can take children who have some aptitude for the hard sciences and math and get them to view China as a potential partner and friend, I think, is very disturbing as well.

“So we have, on one hand, the broad misleading imaging of China, but also the notion that China can be a partner to these students all through their educational careers. We’re creating an assembly line for talented young men and women who will be unable to distinguish the American national interest from the Chinese national interest. They’re getting blurred together at a young age and that’s very difficult to undo once it’s done.” [Emphasis added.]

Wood noted that CCP infiltration of American K-12 schools is “almost everywhere.”

“That is, in every state that we’ve looked at, we have found instances of it, but I would say it’s concentrated in the feeder schools to elite education, which means mostly West Coast and East Coast, but not exclusively those.

“The effort here is, China’s not just spreading around its resources promiscuously across the land. It’s looking for places where buying influence will yield results in the long term. So, it’s widespread, but much more prevalent here on the East Coast and California.”

China’s influence in New York schools, for example, is so prevalent that several Republican Members of Congress from New York sent a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul, asking her to take action:

“An alarming new report has exposed how millions of dollars of funding from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have flowed into America’s K-12 classrooms. Programs vetted and managed by China’s government have infiltrated 34 states and Washington, D.C., which impacts approximately 170,000 students across 143 school districts. Unfortunately, this investigation discovered 12 school systems in our own state have received money from the CCP. This includes the New York City Department of Education, which received $375,575.00 in CCP-connected funding. Considering China’s adversarial relationship with the United States, this is deeply problematic and presents a national security concern for our constituents and state

“We are writing to not only share this dangerous situation, but to request that you address this concerning report and the underlying issue of CCP influence in New York K-12 education.” [Emphasis added.]

Hochul reportedly has close relations with CCP representatives in New York. She has repeatedly met with Huang Ping, China’s New York Consul General, who once described Hochul as “an old friend,” an honorific bestowed on those who have “rendered great services to China,” as Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg write in their book, Hidden Hand.

Huang has denied any Chinese wrongdoing on human rights, Taiwan or the Uyghur concentration camps, which he has said are mere “campuses” for reeducation. Most recently, Hochul sent Elaine Fan, a senior aide who is Director of Asian Affairs at the New York State Governor’s Executive Chamber, to participate in an annual Chinese propaganda event, known as “An Evening of Chinese Culture” jointly hosted by the New York Mets and the Sino-American Friendship Association, a CCP-linked outfit.

Perhaps it is time for a deep-dive investigation by the US House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, chaired by Rep. Mike Gallagher.

*****

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

Weekend Read: Populism, Politics, and Markets thumbnail

Weekend Read: Populism, Politics, and Markets

By Neland Nobel

Markets function within a complex framework of regulatory and central bank influence.  This regulatory and monetary backdrop is not the benign rule of “experts”  supposed by regulatory advocates in college textbooks, but rather often the product of raw entrenched political power.  Success is getting in sync with the flow of money and political power.  The “imperial city” in Washington is the lodestar, not open competition in the marketplace.

The influence of political power has several dimensions.  It is both internal political changes and external political changes that can influence markets.

In terms of domestic politics,  the old “spoils system” which existed prior to 19th-century civil service reform, was superior in the sense that when an administration came into power, it brought its friends and supporters, many of whom were not particularly talented.  When a particular party was turned out of office, the old bureaucratic friends had to leave as well and the new administration was able to bring in their own team.  And then, over time, they too would be removed and the cycle would begin again.

Getting a new team from time to time brought in new ideas and it allowed the administration to function without the hostility of entrenched interests held over from political opponents, who would use their administrative power to block new directions.  In a sense, it was more democratic.  When things changed at the polls, things changed in the bureaucracy.

The unintended consequence of professional bureaucrats is they can stay in place as political parties ebb and flow, giving birth to a permanent bureaucracy almost impervious to change.  This is further complicated when opposing political parties basically agree to the same regulatory philosophy.

But the world changes whether bureaucrats do or don’t change, thus political change does still seep through and has the potential to change the way markets have operated.

One of the aspects of the way things have run over the past several decades has been a close economic alliance with China.  US industry poured billions into Chinese development, based on the theory that as they grew rich, they would become more “liberal”.  Authoritarianism would wane, and having too great of a stake in the world economy, China would not become belligerent.

As China took over more and more manufacturing jobs, the US commensurately lost key knowledge and skills and has become overly dependent on China.  We agreed to give up our jobs and they agreed to buy our debt.

It has proven to be a very bad political and economic bet.  The US has become dependent on China and reshoring efforts are proving difficult.   China is massively building and modernizing its military and has moved into an alliance of sorts with US rival Russia.

Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, US business confidence in China has fallen to a 24-year low.  Clearly, a major political shift is on with China, with MAGA Republicans initiating the change.

Meanwhile, Mexico has replaced China as the greatest exporter to the US, and China is steadily reducing its holdings of US Treasury debt.  Additionally alarming,  Mexico is descending deeper into the corruption of a narco-state.  Bilateral trade seems to be taking over from globalist pretensions.

This shift from China will be disruptive to the US and to China itself.  And when the two largest economies in the world are disrupted, the world economy will feel the change.

China has many problems, both political and demographic.  One of the most immediate is the ongoing unwinding of their massive real estate bubble.  After wobbling for two years, Ever Grande, a giant real estate development company has filed for bankruptcy.  More companies, though, are in trouble.  This is all part of the top-down, authoritarian model imposed by Chairman Xi as he moved his nation away from the market model back to the socialist model.  Additionally, it was not just central planning of the worst sort, it was central planning juiced with a giant debt bubble.

So among the political changes likely to influence markets, the troubles in China are likely to be significant.

In terms of domestic politics, we have had our own flirtation with top-down central planning. Since Obama, elites have sought to change the healthcare system and fight “global warming”. The adoption of Modern Monetary Theory by the Biden Administration, and its record acceleration of Federal debt to pay for all these schemes, has caused a spike in interest rates, which itself runs the risk of destabilizing our own domestic and international debt bubble.

The supply of bonds is rising sharply, but the FED has become a seller rather than a buyer, Social Security is a seller, and China has become a net seller.  Lower bond prices have meant higher rates, even as the FED attempts a “pause.”

Democrat policies of supply restriction and cost escalation,  have all but destroyed the dream of owning a house for many young people.  The ability to afford a new car also is fading.  The destruction of the American middle class is already creating an enormous political backlash with significant risk for Democrats.

A strategic realignment has occurred with supporters of small businesses, farmers, and nongovernment labor-tending Republicans. while Big Business, wealthy elites, and Rainbow members now favor the Democrats.

We recently completed two trips to rural Pennsylvania and rural Montana.  Trump signs are everywhere. It is fair to say, these people feel ignored.  They rightly or wrongly do not feel the current system is working for them.

Big business and the regulatory state have cross-captured each other.  Many business leaders would rather get a subsidy or loan guarantees than fight for profits against talented rivals. Those who benefit from the Green New Deal include car companies, power companies, and favored technologies.  Democrats are busy building cartels in healthcare, pharma, technology, and power generation and have turned their backs on small businesses.

As the government increasingly picks winners and losers, those picked as “winners” by the government can get a nasty surprise when they discover customers don’t agree.  We are seeing this play out among many of the EV companies.  We don’t want a car that is expensive, has little range, and is prone to spontaneously catch fire.

Democrat political enemies include traditional farming, ranching, timber cutting, mining, coal, and petroleum industries.  Tech companies are heavily favored by Democrats and often willingly become their political pawns.  Democrats hate private medicine.

No wonder there is a huge divergence between small-town America and the Big Blue cities that reliably elect Democrats.

The rise of multiple monopolies has birthed a new variant of “populism”, which does not look much like its 19th-century cousin, which had a socialistic slant to it.  Today’s populism could be described as formerly business-supporting conservatives joining forces with blue-collar workers turning against the policies favoring China and the crony capitalism cabal of the Green New Deal. 

Small business and labor traditionally frowned on monopolies.   Traditional free market advocates suggested it is only with government favors that monopolies can be maintained. That is still likely true.  However, now that industrial cartels have government favor, how do you change that?

Exactly how does one try to get market share from Google?

Oppressive regulation is increasing costs and very often, the government-sanctioned products are inferior and of poor quality.  The government now wishes to tell you how to wash your clothes, your dishes, and even how to cook your meals.  In the name of “global warming” the government creates dishwashers that run for a half day and don’t clean dishes.  If you can buy one that lasts five years, you are lucky.

The business community itself has further alienated the public with its constant panderings to ESG and woke culture.  In so doing, they have alienated natural free market allies and will soon discover that state-planning socialists are not the best partners for business prosperity.  Conservatives remain in favor of free enterprise but they no longer feel much loyalty to the current American form of crony capitalism,  especially large corporations.

As strikes spread throughout Hollywood and Detroit, conservatives yawn and suppose these “woke” corporations are getting what they deserve.

This change in politics likely means the end of an era for American business.  For the past 25 years or so, it has been a profitable joyride in China, a profitable alignment with the government, generous benefits of ultra-cheap money and low-interest rates, bailouts, and a record rise in corporate profits.  Great benefits have accrued to capital and less to labor.

The middle class feels it is getting screwed.  Loud minorities demand state reparations, increased benefits, and exemption from criminal activities.  It may have started with Brexit and Trump, but populist movements are ascendant in Italy and rising even in socialist Argentina.

Schools don’t work, public safety is collapsing, and the system seems to favor the racially aggrieved, and the sexually confused, while the whole thrust of government is one of constant interference in our difficult daily lives with institutional lying now the norm rather than the exception.

Populism reflects that the middle class does not feel the current system is working for them nor are the elites pushing such policies either concerned or aware of these problems.  Utopians have seized the reigns of power and want to change the climate of the earth, the relations between men and women, between families and the government, all while keeping as many people as medicated as possible.

Populists don’t trust the legal system, the medical establishment, the school system, the press,  and the universities.  They think the popular culture is often hostile to raising families.

Even the reputation of the military is falling, which explains recruiting woes. What happens when a large swath of the population becomes alienated from basic institutions?

One wonders if all the marijuana shops are there primarily to keep young, aggressive men in a haze of self-induced contentment and oblivious ignorance.

Above all that, the frequent bailouts and interventions to save various industries have lost considerable political support.  The next credit crisis will find much less support for bailouts and besides, given the current state of deficit spending, big huge new bailouts are financially out of the question.

All these megatrends are moving in different directions than they were previously and markets will have to go about adjusting to the new reality.  Republicans are no longer reliably “pro-business” while Democrats remain reliably anti-free market.  The Chamber of Commerce is out of touch.

Today’s “populism” is more than a revolt against the administrative state and the commercial cartels it generates.  It is a combination of economic frustrations and cultural alienation. It flips the 1960s on its head.  The middle class is now revolting against the “Establishment run by the elites.”

This revolt is likely to grow, and politicians, in the end, are more than anything opportunists. Markets will have to adapt.

TAKE ACTION

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

America’s ‘Rainbow’ Military Is On Track To Lose Another Major War thumbnail

America’s ‘Rainbow’ Military Is On Track To Lose Another Major War

By Shawn Fleetwood

“US military asks the public for help finding its missing F-35 fighter jet after its pilot had to eject while training over South Carolina.”

While the above Insider headline may sound like a comedic piece straight from the pages of The Babylon Bee, it’s not. The U.S. military actually publicly claimed it had lost a multi-million-dollar fighter jet.

The loss occurred Sunday following an alleged “mishap” that required the aircraft’s pilot to eject. The F-35 purportedly kept on flying. It wasn’t until Monday evening — a day after Joint Base Charleston requested the public’s assistance in finding the missing jet — that military officials announced they had discovered a debris field “about two hours northeast” of the base.

The debacle has since prompted the Marine Corps’ acting commandant, Eric Smith, to issue a “two-day stand-down” order for all military aviation units “both inside and outside of the United States.”

A Sign of Decline

This episode raises so many questions. For one, how does the U.S. military — the supposed best and most advanced fighting force on the planet — lose a highly-valued asset, especially over U.S. soil?

Why are military bases such as Joint Base Charleston acting as landing pads for commercial planes transporting members of the People’s Republic of China — the very government trying to topple the United States as the world’s hegemon?

While it’s improbable any of these questions will actually be answered to the public’s satisfaction, the likely answers probably wouldn’t reverse Americans’ waning confidence in the ability of U.S. military leadership to defend the American homeland. Nor should they.

This week’s fighter jet fiasco is just one example of many showcasing a U.S. military in severe institutional decline. Instead of focusing on how to win wars — which should be the sole purpose of any military — top Pentagon brass have since at least the Clinton administration treated the service as one giant, left-wing social experiment.

Through its adoption and outright promotion of neo-Marxist ideologies including DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the military has sacrificed efficiency, ruthlessness, and strength for LGBT celebrations, racial politics, and climate alarmism. A look into the backgrounds of President Biden’s many military nominees shows the primary focus of the Pentagon’s leading figures isn’t defeating communist China or protecting Americans from other international threats, it’s crafting a “diverse” and “inclusive” social club where leftist lunacy is treated as gospel and conservative “wrongthink” as extreme.

Look no further than the Pentagon’s abortion policy, which violates U.S. law in using taxpayer money to pay for female military members’ travel expenses to kill their unborn child. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Democrats have baselessly claimed for months that Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s slow-walking of Biden’s military nominees in protest of the policy harms “military readiness.”

If that’s true, then why hasn’t the Pentagon dropped its policy? If “readiness” is such a major concern, why did the military fire thousands of service members who chose not to get an experimental shot? And why isn’t Democrat Chuck Schumer using his power as Senate majority leader to approve Biden’s supposedly important nominees?

The reason, as tacitly admitted by the heads of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, is that taxpayer-funded abortions are a sacrament of the leftist religion so must be preserved at all costs. Coupled with decades of failed military adventurism and nation-building like that conducted in Afghanistan, it’s no wonder the U.S. military is facing the worst recruiting crisis since shifting to an all-volunteer force in 1973.

A High Price To Pay

The Marxist hijacking of America’s military isn’t an accident; it’s an intentional act contributing to the left’s greater plan to re-invent society. For the left, the military is just another piece on the American chessboard to coopt. It’s why the military so vigorously promotes Marxism and penalizes conservative beliefs: to dissuade the God and America-loving patriots who have largely staffed it for generations from joining or remaining in service.

As witnessed many times before, however, the leftist takeover of institutions has its costs. Only America’s “rainbow” military could cost our country its security and well-being.

For decades, the U.S. military has prevented widespread global conflict, deterring aggression from hostile actors and maintaining peace through strength. If the world’s leading aggressors no longer view America as the dominant military power, where does that leave us? If the U.S. gets dragged into a war with a rival power, can we be confident our “rainbow” fighting force can get the job done? The withdrawal from Afghanistan and growing quagmire in Ukraine atop the failed war in Iraq and our military’s distraction into identity politics don’t bode well.

Much like the missing F-35, our nation’s military is lost with no sense of direction or purpose, and those faithfully committed to the American cause are forced to bail out. Let us hope and pray for new military leadership before it’s too late.

*****

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.

Arizona State University Releases Report Over Conservative Event Backlash

By Cameron Arcand

After Arizona State University released a report suggesting there was “no evidence” of a campaign to smear an event featuring conservative speakers, one Republican state senator is not satisfied with the outcome.

The T.W. Lewis Center at the school hosted an event in February with conservative media personalities Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk, as well as financial author Robert Kiyosaki. The event sparked backlash from some faculty at Barrett, the Honors College, and some students. Following the intense backlash, Tom Lewis pulled funding for the center and its executive director, Ann Atkinson, lost her job, alleging she was fired.

“The university’s review found the kind of passionate discussion and debate that the First Amendment celebrates, followed by a successful event where the invited speakers reached tens of thousands of audience members,” the report states. “Answering the allegations brought by Ms. Atkinson, the university’s review did not find evidence that Barrett faculty ran a “national condemnation campaign.” A campaign is a systematic and coordinated effort to achieve a specific outcome.”

However, the university did acknowledge that there was a letter signed by faculty, along with other public opposition to the event.

“As Section 4 of this report indicates, while more than 30 Barrett faculty members signed a letter written to their dean to strongly oppose the event, our review revealed no evidence that Barrett faculty engaged in a coordinated national campaign of activities such as hiring a public relations firm, writing editorials in national publications, soliciting support from local or national media figures, soliciting news media coverage, soliciting support from political organizations, or communicating with donors,” the report continues.

Sen. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, doesn’t buy their findings.

“We appear to have a case of the fox guarding the henhouse with ASU’s attempts to write off the seriousness of these claims,” Kern said in a statement Monday. “While it’s unfortunate ASU’s administrators chose to take this approach with their investigation, it’s not unexpected. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that they would in fact own up to some of the serious problems that stifled free speech for students on campus under their watch, however, their complicity calls for further action from state legislators.”

As there was a legislative hearing on the matter in July, Kern said he will be having another hearing soon to sift through the report.

I look forward to hosting a follow-up committee hearing in the coming weeks where lawmakers will review this report together, hear additional testimony, and discuss making policy changes to prevent similar situations from unfolding in the future. This issue is not unique to Arizona State University, as we’re hearing instances of free speech infringement on campuses around the nation. It is our obligation as lawmakers to take action now,” he added.

In response to the report, Atkinson posted a poll to X, formerly known as Twitter, asking users if they were surprised at the university’s conclusion.

“ASU completed its ‘investigation’ over its handling of the Barrett free speech crisis and Health, Wealth & Happiness,” she posted. “After investigating itself, ASU remains steadfast in its denial of wrongdoing.”

*****

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

Google is Where Democracy is Dying? thumbnail

Google is Where Democracy is Dying?

By Bruce Bialosky

Has it been more than five minutes since you heard someone on the left spouting about how our democracy is in danger? The Washington Post adopted the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” while simultaneously keeping their readers in the dark about a multitude of critical issues. Despite all the hysteria, the Left ignores the single biggest challenge to our democracy which has been scientifically proven.

Dr. Robert Epstein would be considered by most to be a member of the “elite.” He has a PhD in Experimental Psychology from Harvard. He was Editor-in-Chief of Psychology Today. He has been a visiting professor at international universities and now operates the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT). Politically, he is a self-described lifelong center/center-left person who supports the Democrat party.

AIBRT has researched many topics affecting our day-to-day lives including AI, parenting, and stress management. Epstein has done a deep dive into the manipulation of search engines to alter election results and has testified to Congressional committees regarding his research.

“As of January 2018, the National Academy of Sciences ranked AIBRT’s 2015 paper on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) to be in the top 1 percent of all scientific papers the organization monitored in all the sciences, both short-term and long-term. As of August 18, 2023, the paper had been accessed or downloaded from PNAS’s website more than 230,000 times, and SEME had been partially or fully replicated multiple times.”

In his U.S. Senate testimony, he stated:

1. In 2016, Google likely shifted at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton whom I supported. These manipulations are invisible and noncompetitive. They are controlled by Big Tech companies and there is no way to counteract them.

2. In 2018, on election day, the Go Vote reminder that Google displayed on its home page gave a political party (Democrats) between 800,000 to 4.6 million more votes than the other party (Republicans). That reminder was not a public service, it was a voter manipulation.

3. In 2018, spread across many political races, bias in search may have shifted 78.2 million votes.

Though Dr. Epstein focused on Google, he stated, “If you were to examine the data I have been collecting over the past 6-and-a-half years, every one of you would put partisanship aside to reign in the extraordinary power that Google and Facebook now wield with unabashed arrogance.”

While the power structure was focused on Russian interference, Epstein stated it did not shift many votes. Dr. Epstein said though Google censored mainly conservative content it also censors “progressive and socialist content.” This single entity, which is not accountable to anyone, should not have this kind of power. And our government does not want to amend Section 230 to make these operations more accountable to someone.

In April 2023 Epstein published in Gatestone a detailed update of his position on this issue, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19608/election-threat-big-tech.

As you know, many elected officials deny there is any material fraud in our elections. Hans Von Spakovsky has developed a database hosted by the Heritage Foundation of actual convictions of people across the country for voter fraud violations. Epstein states “Those are tiny incidents compared to what is happening here on a massive scale. That is because Google search results are seen each day in the United States 500 million times.

Many Republicans express what appears to be deeply suspicious thoughts about our national elections. Dr. Epstein states “in general, Republicans cannot win. It is because there are so many different methods available to these tech companies for manipulating opinions and votes without people’s awareness.” Maybe their suspicions are warranted.

Epstein believes the bias is apparent on its face. He says the people who work at the major tech companies all have the same politics and the proof is that 96% of Google’s political donations go to one political party and that is not Republicans.

Dr. Epstein has already collected extensive data backing up his claims. He wants to collect more. To do so he needs substantial financial support. He wants to monitor Google 24/7 to expose their manipulations.

Epstein’s research may explain some of the losses in close elections for Republicans. However, if you look at the situation, giving AIBRT the tools to protect us from this proven trickery may be worth Republicans focusing their efforts to reverse the techs from altering our elections.

The Left is an expert at deflection. While they encourage procedures like ballot harvest, mailing ballots out to every resident of a state and never tracing those ballots, month-long election “days,” registering people based on their obtaining a driver’s license without proof of citizenship, and legalizing non-citizens voting in elections, they point fingers at Republicans for imaginary voter suppression. The real danger to Democracy may be embedded in search engines like Google. You will never hear a peep from the Left because Google shifts elections towards them and they believe winning is everything.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

A Test of Your Understanding of Diversity thumbnail

A Test of Your Understanding of Diversity

By Craig J. Cantoni

A one-question test reveals that diversity is as much about exclusion as it is about inclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to test your understanding of diversity and its related movements of equity and inclusion.  We’ll begin with the five precepts of diversity and then turn to a one-question test.

The precepts:

  1. The greater the racial and ethnic diversity within an organization, the stronger and higher-performing the organization.
  2. Diversity is furthered by increasing the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in an organization at all levels, at least to the same percentage as their percentage in the nation’s overall population, but ideally beyond that.
  3. Special consideration and even preferences should be given to members of minority groups that have suffered injustices, that are lacking in political power, that are lagging in income and educational achievement, and that are underrepresented at the top levels of government, industry, media, and academia.
  4. It is fair, just, and legal to make way for groups in the minority by holding back those in the majority, especially given that those in the majority have accrued power and privilege through oppression and racism.
  5. To accomplish the foregoing, it is necessary to track everyone’s race and ethnicity and to intercede in hiring and promotions when diversity isn’t increasing fast enough. This is the primary job of directors of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)

Let’s now test your understanding of diversity.

Below is a partial list of the hundreds of ethnocultural groups in the world and the United States.  Read through the list and pick out the groups that should be included in DEI initiatives, based on the foregoing precepts.  To repeat, an eligible group should be a numerical minority, should be underrepresented, should have suffered injustices somewhere in its history, and should lag in income and educational achievement.

Albanians, Altaians, Armenians, Assyrians, Azerbaijanis, Balochs, Bedouins, Camminanti, Chechens, Cypriots, Doms, Druze, Kurds, Maronites, Moldovans, Pashtuns, Persians, Roma, Samaritans, Semites, Serbs, Sicilians, Slovenians, Tatars, Turkmens, Uzbeks, and Walloons.

Now that you’ve made your selections, here’s the correct answer:  None of the above groups should be included in DEI initiatives.

You might find that answer puzzling in view of the fact that most of the groups, if not all of them, meet the DEI criteria.  But you overlooked an equally important fact:  that all of these diverse groups have a whitish complexion and are thus classified as white for purposes of diversity.  The unspoken DEI rule and automatic disqualifier is that people pigeonholed as white cannot be included in DEI initiatives, regardless of their ethnicity, physical features, culture, history, or socioeconomic circumstance.

If that strikes you as unfair, illogical, and inconsistent, you should keep in mind that DEI, in spite of its lofty rhetoric, is not necessarily about fairness, logic, or consistency.  In keeping with human nature, it’s also about guilt by association, tribalism, self-interest, resentment, and retribution.  Moreover, DEI is based on simple narratives of good versus evil, black versus white, victim versus victimizer, and one tribe versus another. These narratives are stripped of nuance, complexity, historical context, and anthropological and sociological objectivity.

The guilt by association stems from the fact that the United States was founded by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who subjugated Native Americans, introduced slavery, and engaged in other injustices.  Therefore, all other people with whitish skin who came to America after them are guilty by association, including Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and Middle Easterners—people who were classified as non-white by the WASPs and treated as such.

DEI dogmatists seem incapable of recognizing the deep diversity among people classified as white.

They also seem incapable of admitting that the WASPs of yesteryear had many positive attributes, including a belief in liberal democracy and a constitutional republic with a bill of rights, or in other words, a government with self-correcting features.  Once these humanistic ideals were institutionalized, it was inevitable that the contradiction between them and slavery would eventually come to a head. Even slave-holding founders saw the hypocrisy.  Also, of course, many WASPs were abolitionists.

Cognitive dissonance pervades the DEI movement, most notably in ignoring the racism, prejudices, and injustices perpetrated by groups that are portrayed as victims and thus supposedly above such human failings.  This is especially so with respect to Hispanics, who are considered eligible for DEI initiatives, although Spaniards and Portuguese were worse than WASPs with respect to the slave trade and the brutalization of indigenous peoples.  DEI makes no distinction between Hispanics who are descendants of oppressors and those who are descendants of victims of oppression.

If Hispanics can be included in DEI initiatives, then for sure there is no justifiable reason for excluding such groups as those listed in the foregoing test.  After all, these groups had nothing to do with the subjugation of Native Americans or with the slave trade, and they certainly can’t be accused of being privileged.

But don’t expect DEI dogmatists to admit that.  That’s because DEI is as much about exclusion as it is about inclusion. 

TAKE ACTION

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

Teachers’ Unions vs. Teachers, Parents, and Children: The NEA and AFT thumbnail

Teachers’ Unions vs. Teachers, Parents, and Children: The NEA and AFT

By Aaron Withe

Summary: All government unions are profoundly harmful, but the most damaging are the teachers’ unions. Since 2020, they have lobbied and agitated successfully to keep kids out of schools—and keep their members receiving a paycheck despite not showing up at work. They have forced children to wear masks for eight hours a day despite the absence of scientific evidence in favor of this policy. They have inflicted sex education, often in graphic and offensively inappropriate detail, upon fourth graders. They have begun the implementation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which teaches children to segregate themselves based on race or the color of their skin. But the shock of COVID-19 and the resulting overreaction of the education establishment so upset and disarranged the education landscape that things once thought impossible have now drifted into the range of possibility.

All government unions are profoundly harmful, but the most damaging are the teachers’ unions. Since 2020, they have lobbied and agitated successfully to keep kids out of schools—and keep their members receiving a paycheck despite not showing up at work. They have forced children to wear masks for eight hours a day despite the absence of scientific evidence in favor of this policy—and they have done so while their leader’s party and frolic, maskless, with the likes of Barack Obama. They have inflicted sex education, often in graphic and offensively inappropriate detail, upon fourth graders. They have begun the implementation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which teaches children to segregate themselves based on race or the color of their skin. Martin Luther King, who dreamed of a world in which our children are measured by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, must be rolling in his grave.

I’ve always said that a good measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens. When we started closing schools, we said that we care more about the perceived threat of COVID-19 to adults than we care about the mental health of children.

The NEA and AFT

Between them, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have nearly five million members. Their national associations report annual revenues of approximately $370 million and $200 million, respectively, which are drawn overwhelmingly from dues paid by those members, and that doesn’t include the hundreds of millions in revenue that their local affiliates collect.

The Bigfoot lobbyists of the NEA and AFT want more when it comes to spending, as lobbies invariably do, but they are frequently found in a negative posture, for no one hates the idea of reform quite as much as a teachers’ union.

Vouchers, charter schools, education savings accounts, merit pay for teachers…you name it, the teachers’ unions are against it. Anything that promises to empower parents and raise the quality of public education is like poison to these characters. AFT president Randi Weingarten & Co. fear reform the way that an unsightly wart fears the dermatologist.

The NEA’s office in Washington, DC is just up Sixteenth Street from the White House, an indication of how much proximity to power means to these “educators.” Although it once prided itself on being a “professional association,” by 1976 the increasingly politicized NEA was ready to make its first presidential endorsement. Despite his campaign pledge to streamline the federal government and sharply reduce the number of agencies, Jimmy Carter made a whopping exception for the Department of Education.

The establishment of the US Department of Education (DOE) in 1979 was largely a payoff to the National Education Association, which vigorously supported Carter in his successful 1976 campaign for the presidency. Curiously, the rival American Federation of Teachers opposed the creation of the DOE—not out of any high principle, but because the AFT feared it would be cut out of the NEA-dominated action.

Substantial opposition to this new department existed among key advisers within the Carter administration, who regarded it as just another superfluous bureaucracy. Much of the liberal press was cool to the idea; the Washington Post and New York Times editorialized against it as “a cynical payoff to the NEA.” But Congress had warmed to the idea. As historian Gareth Davies noted in his account of education politics, the previously apolitical NEA had contributed to the campaigns of 350 congressional candidates in 1978, over 80 percent of whom had won.

The union paid good money to buy these politicians, and most of them stayed bought. The House of Representatives approved this bureaucratic monstrosity in 1979 by a tight vote of 215–201, and President Carter signed it with an embarrassing puppy-dog eagerness. A tough reelection loomed, and the Carter campaign was now “a wholly owned subsidiary of the NEA,” in the harsh verdict of Democratic New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Not that the union disagreed with Senator Moynihan’s characterization. After the DOE was born, an NEA official bragged, “We’re the only union with our own Cabinet department.”

Teachers are paid based on the number of years they’ve worked at the job and the number of credits they’ve accumulated in continuing education classes. Their skill as teachers and the amount of learning the children in their care have done, have absolutely zero effect on their salary. Should the school district be forced to tighten its belt, the outstanding young teacher will get a pink slip while the lazy deadwood protected by tenure keeps collecting a paycheck.

In protecting their worst members, government unions such as the NEA punish the talented and push one and all toward the mediocre middle. Their goal is to keep everyone at the 50th percentile, which in practice means dragging down the best and shielding the poorest performers from suffering any consequences for their bad work.

Ideally, the worst government employees—say, the bottom 5 percent—would be fired, and the best would receive raises and other rewards. Unfortunately, the contracts negotiated under collective bargaining do not allow this. They operate on a one-size-fits-all principle that is always and everywhere the enemy of creativity and justice.

No wonder a public school principal in New York City acidly observed the AFT president: “Randi Weingarten would protect a dead body in the classroom. That’s her job.”

This is unfair to good teachers, and it is a crime against children. The ballyhooed education reform movements that have arisen for the last forty years, from a 1983 blue-ribbon panel’s A Nation at Risk report to President Barack Obama’s modest proposal to expand charter schools and teacher evaluation, have mostly run aground for one overriding reason: the power of teachers’ unions.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

There’s More Than Enough Evidence for a Joe Biden Impeachment Inquiry thumbnail

There’s More Than Enough Evidence for a Joe Biden Impeachment Inquiry

By David Harsanyi

“Without evidence.”

They want those two words imprinted in your mind whenever you hear about the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

“Since gaining the House majority in January,” writes The Associated Press, “House Republicans have aggressively investigated Biden and his son, claiming without evidence that they engaged in an influence-peddling scheme.”

Many other pieces use the same language.

Sticking the words “without evidence” into a story is meant to insinuate that the impetus for an investigation is itself meritless. What kind of people make accusations without evidence, right? But, as they know, inquiries exist for the purpose of uncovering evidence.

Then again, there already exists tons of substantive proof that Joe Biden was likely “engaged” in the family racket. Now, it goes without saying that without the Biden last name, there is no Biden Inc. But numerous witnesses, many with no connection to one another or political agendas, have independently testified that he was involved.

Let’s start with the IRS whistleblowers charged with investigating Hunter Biden’s tax case, who testified under oath that Joe was present in at least one meeting with Hunter’s foreign clients. In numerous private emails and texts and WhatsApp messages he never imagined would be made public, Hunter talks about his dad not only helping him secure payments, but taking a cut for himself.

Hunter’s former business partner contends that Joe was involved. Another of Hunter’s partners, who is also a former close friend, maintained under oath that Joe spoke to Hunter’s associates at least 24 times, often being dialed in on the phone during business meetings. An FBI informant documented conversations that indicated to him that Joe pressured foreign companies to send millions to the family business.

And listen, I get that Democrats want us to believe it was just crazy happenstance that Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company that was paying his son $1 million a year. But if the vice president knew the two were in business—and since he had a sit-down with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi, it is highly likely he did—then his actions were a corrupt conflict of interest, at the very least.

That’s also all evidence.

Yet, Democrats want to create new evidentiary standards for both congressional investigations and for impeachment. No, Joe didn’t need to commit a crime to be impeached. We know this from the first Trump impeachment.

And, no, Biden didn’t need to directly benefit from his family’s corrupt business ventures to be corrupt. If one of the most powerful people in the United States government allows or participates in a scheme to trade on his power to make millions for his family (or deliberately gives the impression that he’s willing to do so), it may or may not be illegal, but it is clearly unethical.

Money, incidentally, is fungible. Just because a shady Ukrainian isn’t writing “re: Joe Biden influence trading” on the memo line of a check doesn’t mean the president didn’t benefit. Perhaps further inquiry into the 20 shell companies and dozens of bank accounts, or the 5,000 emails in which Joe used pseudonyms to converse with Hunter and presumably others—all of it completely normal stuff for an aboveboard family business, right?—will provide some answers.

Now, obviously, there are partisan dimensions to an impeachment. And obviously, some people overstate the existing case against the president. But let’s not forget that Joe Biden has been lying about his knowledge of Hunter’s “work” for years. If the president’s relationship with Hunter was entirely separate and innocent—a product of their love—why does Joe feel compelled to lie?

Whatever the case, standards have suddenly changed. Recall that Democrats claimed without evidence for years that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. To say there is more evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing than was offered in any story connected to Trump-Russia collusion, a hysteria based on leaks, anonymous sources, and fictitious works of political opposition, is to dramatically understate the matter.

Take Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who famously claimed not only to have uncovered a criminal conspiracy by Trump’s 2016 campaign but also to be in personal possession of smoking-gun “direct evidence.” I have gone through dozens of pieces related to Schiff’s declaration, and not one reporter writes that the California congressmen did so “without evidence”—or anything approaching that kind of wording.

Not in the text, much less in a headline.

If the legacy political media were doing their job defending “democracy,” outlets would be deploying teams of crack journalists to track down leads and find out if there is any evidence related to Biden’s wrongdoing, as they did with Trump, rather than playing defense for the most powerful man in the world.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal 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.

NBC’s Kristen Welker Lied Repeatedly About Democrats’ Extreme Abortion Position thumbnail

NBC’s Kristen Welker Lied Repeatedly About Democrats’ Extreme Abortion Position

By Mollie Hemingway

Nearly every single elected Democrat supports forcing states to allow unborn children to be killed throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Kristen Welker brazenly and repeatedly lied in a bizarre, conspiracy-laden debate with former President Donald Trump on Sunday. The show was her first time as the permanent host of “Meet The Press,” previously hosted by Democrat activist Chuck Todd.

Welker interrupted her own pre-taped debate with the president to insert her own “fact checks” that were false or were not responsive to actual claims Trump made. For example, she falsely claimed there is no evidence President Biden had pressured Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict his primary political opponent, Trump. In fact, in addition to statements calling for efforts to prevent Trump from running, that pressure campaign was publicly laundered for all the world to see through The New York Times on April 2, 2022, in an article headlined “Garland Faces Growing Pressure as Jan. 6 Investigation Widens.” The article reported that Biden was extremely frustrated by Garland not having indicted Trump and, further, that Biden was telling people he wanted Trump prosecuted. The Times’ White House stenographers said Biden “wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”

Trump noted in a response to Welker that Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling scandal implicates Biden, so Welker interrupted the pre-taped interview to insert a defense of Biden in which she responded to something Trump didn’t say. She claimed there was no evidence Biden personally benefited financially from his family’s influence-peddling scheme. But even if the point was relevant to what had been said, there is evidence — in the form of multiple texts from Hunter Biden claiming he pays his father’s bills. Those messages were found on the laptop Welker previously downplayed and ignored when she moderated a 2020 presidential debate.

Welker also pushed an absolutely insane conspiracy theory held by some activists on the left that Trump had wrestled a Secret Service agent in an armored vehicle on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump seemed taken aback that his debate partner either believed that outlandish story or pretended to believe it.

WELKER: So you dispute that account?

TRUMP: Dispute it? Who wouldn’t dispute it? She’s — the craziest account I’ve ever heard. You mean that I was in “The Beast,” and she said I was in “The Beast,” and the Secret Service didn’t want — so I took a guy who was like a black belt in karate and grabbed his neck and tried to choke him —

TRUMP: How ridiculous.

Welker also complained about the lack of a military crackdown on Jan. 6 rioters and falsely claimed that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with preparing the Capitol for protests. In fact, security of the Capitol was one of her main jobs as speaker. The House sergeant at arms is the chief law enforcement officer for the site and serves under the speaker. Multiple law enforcement officials have criticized Pelosi for not acting on intelligence regarding the Jan. 6 protest. NPR reported that Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund made six requests of House and Senate security officials for National Guard troops but was denied. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also discouraged National Guard help.

Shocking Lies About Abortion

But none of that is as bad as Welker’s brazen lies about Democrats’ actual abortion agenda. Much of the interview was devoted to Welker pushing her own pro-abortion talking points. For example, her first question sounded like it could have been written by Planned Parenthood, in which she pushed the false pro-abortion claim that directly and intentionally killing an unborn child in the womb is sometimes medically necessary for women. “So my question for you, Mr. President, is: How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?”

TRUMP: So you have Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people including Democrats wanted it to go back to states so the states could make the right. Roe v. Wade — I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all, because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say, after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby —

WELKER: Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that. I just have to, Democrats are not saying that.

Welker lied in her response. In fact, nearly every single elected Democrat supports forcing states to allow unborn children to be killed throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Given a choice of whether to vote for or against legislation requiring states to permit the killing of unborn children up to the moment of birth, nearly all elected Democrats vote enthusiastically for that.

It’s an extreme and radical position, but it’s one they hold, on the record. It is indisputable.

For example, on Feb. 28, 2022, only one Democrat senator voted no on a radical abortion bill. As Alexandra DeSanctis wrote, the bill “is an effort to ‘codify Roe,’ not only declaring abortion a fundamental right — for any reason, throughout all of pregnancy — but also nullifying any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion. The bill would forbid state laws protecting unborn children after they’re old enough to survive outside the womb. It would nullify bans on abortions chosen for discriminatory reasons, such as the unborn child’s sex or diagnosis with a disability. It would prohibit even the most modest regulations such as informed-consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and even safety standards for abortion clinics.”

It passed the Democrat House the previous year with only two Democrats voting against it. Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who for some time claimed to be pro-life, voted for the bill. That’s how much Democrats are embracing a radical pro-abortion agenda, contrary to Welker’s lies.

Guy Benson noted that the 2017-2018 Congress voted on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions. Roughly 97 percent of congressional Democrats voted against it. “Only 7 countries on earth allow barbaric abortions after 20 weeks. This is their official position, as a matter of record,” Benson wrote.

Laws protecting children who have reached 15 weeks’ gestation are popular. Corporate media, however, lie about the extremism of Democrats’ stated position in an effort to help them politically.

When Trump mentioned that in a 2016 debate, he had called Hillary Clinton out for her support of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, Welker falsely claimed Democrats do not support that. In fact, Clinton struggled to respond precisely because she does believe there should be no protection from abortion for any child for any reason at any point in pregnancy.

When Trump referenced that some Democrats even support having newborn children die, Welker claimed no Democrat supports that. In fact, that was a major issue in 2019 in Virginia. A Democrat delegate in the Virginia legislature named Kathy Tran pushed legislation allowing abortion even when a mother is delivering a baby, to which Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam said in support of the legislation that if such a situation were taking place, the baby would be delivered and allowed to die.

Welker lied about Democrats’ actual position on abortion at least four times in her debate with Trump. Her panel of analysts to discuss her debate with Trump included Laura Jarrett, the daughter of top Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, and two other left-wing journalists.

Trump’s Response

Trump’s response to the questions generated quite a bit of anger among supporters of Gov. Ron DeSantis and other pro-lifers — and rightly so. Trump was asked if he supported DeSantis’ signing of a heartbeat bill, passed by the Florida legislature. That bill protects children who have detectable heartbeats from being killed.

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump said, part of his primary strategy of attacking DeSantis for everything, including his greatest policy achievements. Whether Trump was speaking morally or speaking politically, he was wrong. It is never a terrible thing to protect unborn children from having their lives violently ended. Thousands of babies’ lives have been saved via heartbeat laws. And if by “mistake,” he meant a political miscalculation, he’s wrong there as well.

Govs. Brian Kemp of Georgia, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Greg Abbott of Texas also signed abortion bans in the months leading up to their 2022 reelections, and all of them were reelected resoundingly. DeSantis won reelection by nearly 20 points.

When the Supreme Court finally overturned the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, returning abortion law to the people, it meant that state and federal legislatures could once again decide abortion law. States such as California will enact radical pro-abortion laws while other states such as Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia will be more in line with the rest of the developed world in allowing some protections for unborn children.

To say it’s a mistake for pro-life states to pass pro-life laws is simply wrong, both morally and politically.

The rest of Trump’s response was mostly about finding some ground between Democrats’ radical support of abortion through the moment of birth and a complete ban. While many pro-lifers want all unborn children and their mothers to be protected from the violence of abortion, there is a political argument for pointing out how radical Democrats’ position is and pushing for a compromise around 15 weeks, an extremely popular position with voters. Trump’s problem is that he seems to be resting on his laurels of being the first United States president to address the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., and having appointed three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. These are admittedly impressive laurels.

Trump’s 2016 election rested in large part on the support he received from pro-life voters. He served them well as president. But he should remember that the pro-life political movement didn’t end with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In many ways, the Dobbs decision merely allowed that movement to begin to fight for state and federal laws that protect unborn children and their mothers. Trump should not take continued pro-life support for granted even as he pushes against a propaganda press and attempts to make known how radical and extreme Democrats are on abortion.

TAKE ACTION

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

The FDA Has Gone Rogue thumbnail

The FDA Has Gone Rogue

By Robert Malone

Many of us knew this day would come, and now here it is. As of Monday, September 11, 2023, the FDA has provided “Emergency Use Authorization” for the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine boosters. But there is no public health emergency at this time. And the “boosters” being “Emergency Use Authorized” are designed to provide protection against the Omicron variant called “Kraken.” Which is on its way to becoming extinct, outcompeted by newer variants like Eris which have evolved even further to escape the antibody pressure elicited by the globally deployed leaky “vaccines.”

Prior versions of which boosters, by the way, have been shown to have been adulterated with high levels of plasmid DNA incorporating SV40 virus promoter/enhancer sequences. Which adulteration the FDA continues to ignore.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”

But Biden, under congressional pressure, had decided and certified that the COVID crisis “national emergency” and ended on May 11, 2023, right? Sort of.

The administrative class at the FDA decided that they have the authority to interpret this in their own special way. Despite clear Congressional intent and the Presidential decision, the FDA responded with a series of delaying tactics. These are summarized in an “action notice” in the Federal Register titled “Guidance Documents Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), A Notice by the Food and Drug Administration on 03/13/2023”. At the time of the Presidential declaration, the FDA had 72 COVID-19-related guidance documents currently in effect. These are not law, they are administrative guidance, but often function and are enforced as if they are law. If you are seeking an example of administrative state overreach, this would be a good place to start. So, what is an agency to do? Issue an action notice in the federal register laying out new rules, functionally guidance on guidances.

So here are the new rules, as unilaterally determined by FDA administrators. They took those 72 COVID-19 related guidances and divided them into four tables, and determined what they would mandate for the guidances in each table.

Table 1 were those that would expire when the public health emergency (PHE) would expire.
Table 2 were those that would be revised to continue in effect for 180 days after the PHE declaration expires, then will no longer be in effect on November 07, 2023 (Tuesday).
Table 3 were those to be revised to continue in effect for 180 days after the PHE declaration expires, during which time FDA plans to further revise these guidances .
Table 4 lists COVID-19-related guidance documents whose intended duration is not tied to the COVID-19 PHE and that will remain in effect when the COVID-19 PHE declaration expires. In other words, by administrative fiat, those guidances listed in Table 4 will remain in place for as long as the FDA administrators wish them to remain in place.
And at the top of Table 3 (the ones that they will revise as they see fit and continue as long as they think necessary) is the following:

Did they actually revise FDA-2020-D-1137 between then and now? Did they do the work that they said they would do? In short, no. The guidance remains unrevised since March 2022.

What congressional law and language determines when FDA can issue EUAs?

From the FDA’s own website regarding Emergency Use Authorization–

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

So, basically, the FDA administrative bureaucracy self-determined that they could continue to bypass their normal (already lax) procedures for evaluating vaccine purity (including lack of adulteration), potency, safety and efficacy pretty much for as long as their hearts desire, at least until November 07, 2023. And that is the administrative basis used to enable the September 11, 2023 “Emergency Use Authorization” for the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine boosters. Will that authorization sunset on November 07, 2023? I very much doubt it.

Meanwhile, back at the Capitol dome, the leadership of the congressional gerontocracy continued to snooze, raise funds for the next election, and almost daily demonstrate to the world (during rare public appearances) their quite literal mental incompetence (in a strictly medical sense of the term).

The data clearly demonstrate that there is no longer a COVID public health emergency, and there are no human data demonstrating safety and effectiveness of these mismatched “vaccine booster” products.

World data:

What do the current CDC data show in the USA (total deaths)?

271 deaths per week, 38 deaths per day WITH COVID. In contrast, we lose 200 – 300 mostly young people per day to Fentanyl and other opiates. That is 1,400 deaths per week from drug overdoses. As if one 737 full of young US citizens crashed and killed all passengers per week. Five times the COVID deaths. If opioid deaths are not a public health emergency, then why is COVID an emergency?

The obvious answer is that it is not.

Hospitalization data:

Hospitalized cases are up in the USA. But deaths are down. Not surprising, as the majority of currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus are more highly evolved Omicron variants. Typically more infectious, less pathogenic, and better adapted to evade the narrow antibody-based anti-Spike immune responses elicited by these leaky vaccines.

Who are the ones that are being hospitalized? More of them are the ones that have received a Moderna or Pfizer Emergency Use Authorized mRNA “vaccine” product than have not. That is a fact long known by the US Government but hidden until internal government discussions about this were recently documented by FOIA request.

I infer that the real crisis here is that the data from all over the world are clearly demonstrating that some period of time after receiving a mRNA “Booster vaccine,” recipients are developing “negative effectiveness.”

What the heck is “negative effectiveness,” you may well ask? The term means that those who have received the product are more likely to develop COVID than those who have not been injected. And there are suggestions in the data that the period of time between injection and “negative effectiveness” is getting shorter.

Even if the “vaccine” products have zero rather than negative effectiveness, they certainly have toxicity risks, so why would anyone be willing to receive these products if they knew this?

The “vaccinated” are at higher risk for developing COVID than the unvaccinated. So the “vaccinated” need more “vaccines.” So they can become at yet higher risk for COVID (and other infectious diseases)? Somehow the Joseph Heller WW-II book Catch-22 comes to mind.

And why would the FDA provide “emergency use authorization” and the CDC recommend these clearly toxic products for children?

While speaking at a Thursday news conference for Gov. Ron DeSantis in Jacksonville, Florida, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, that state’s surgeon general, advised people to steer clear of the updated booster vaccine for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved the new vaccine — which is reportedly designed to protect against the BA.2.86 omicron subvariant.

“There’s a new vaccine that’s coming around the corner, a new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and there’s essentially no evidence for it,” Ladapo said during the news conference, according to local news outlets.

“There’s been no clinical trial done in human beings showing that it benefits people” he said.

“There’s been no clinical trial showing that it is a safe product for people — and not only that, but then there are a lot of red flags.”

In terms of specific concerns, Ladapo warned that the updated vaccines “actually cause cardiac injury in many people.”

The state surgeon general urged Floridians to make their own decisions based on their particular “resonance of truth,” rather than on “very educated people telling you what you should think.”

“When they try to convince you to be comfortable and agree with things that don’t feel comfortable, [that] don’t feel like things you should agree with, that is a sign, right? That’s a gift,” he said.

Instead of relying on the new vaccines, Ladapo urged people to adopt healthy nutrition habits.

Just for the record, I completely agree with Dr. Ladapo. But I also recommend checking your vitamin D levels, and taking vitamin D together with Zinc supplements in alignment with your personal physician’s recommendations. And get outside. And don’t forget that stress and fear are immunosuppressive.

Maybe you should think about following John Prine’s advice and blow up your TV. The fearporn being promoted on television and corporate media is hazardous to both your health and your ability to make rational health decisions for yourself and your family.

Let’s discuss the data that the FDA cites. Here is their statement:
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines approved and authorized today are supported by the FDA’s evaluation of manufacturing data to support the change to the 2023-2024 formula and non-clinical immune response data on the updated formulations including the XBB.1.5 component.

OK, what does that mean? Non-clinical immune response data? What it means is that they administered the XBB.1.5 (that would be Kraken) variant vaccine products to mice, drew blood, and tested the mouse antibody responses to the XBB.1.5 as well as EG.5 (Eris) and BA.2.86 (that would be Pirola, previously discussed here) viral variants to see if the mouse serum would stop the ability of these viruses to infect cultured cells. Neither of these viral variants (XBB.1.5, EG.5, or BA.2.86) presents much of a health risk. And they assert that they found that the mouse antibodies cross-reacted against Eris and Pirola in a virus neutralization test. However they did not bother to share those data with the public, so we have no idea of how convincing or even how rigorously controlled those studies were. But we are to trust that the FDA finds these studies involving mouse model testing using a method that has not been demonstrated to predict protection against infection, replication, or spread of this virus in humans. But the corporate media thinks sounds very sciency and so they breathlessly repeat the FDA and Pfizer statements about mouse neutralization assays as if they demonstrate that these “boosters” will be effective. But it is all a lie, a sleight of hand. This is not how modern immunological science is done. This is propaganda and marketing. And the willingness of the FDA to make the above statement clearly demonstrates that they are either 1) completely incompetent, 2) barking mad, or 3) completely captured. Or come a combination of all three.

Note that nothing in the FDA justification addresses the risk to human health posed by these viral variants. The FDA has completely avoided any justification for the use of the emergency use authorization pathway, rather than a more standard, traditional testing and evaluation process. Because they do not think that they need to. This provides yet another example of the arrogance of the current administrative leviathan.

Once again – VIRUS NEUTRALIZATION IS NOT A PROVEN CORRELATE OF PROTECTION. Back in the day, before 2020, if a vaccine company were so bold as to assert that a mouse virus neutralization assay (or any other lab test) predicted vaccine protection in humans without having proven that the assay actually predicted whether or not the vaccine would protect humans, they would be sued and blocked from making such false unsupported claims. But since 2020, this type of claim has become routine. The FDA has gone completely rogue. They completely disregard what was previously well-established global regulatory standards on this subject.

The updated mRNA vaccines are manufactured using a similar process as previous formulations. In studies that have been recently conducted, the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5 and BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with prior versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants against which they had been developed to provide protection. This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants.

Lies and falsehoods on top of lies and falsehoods. There is clear evidence that the manufacturing process is poorly controlled, lots are highly variable, and this poorly controlled process has resulted in significant adulteration of the products.

Furthermore, mouse-based viral neutralization assays do not predict effectiveness in “protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants.” There is no evidence to support that claim. This is yet another case of substituting hope for actual scientific proof. There is no evidence that these mismatched boosters will prevent infection, replication, or spread of currently circulating COVID-19 variants. A “suggestion” is not a rational basis for “Emergency Use” regulatory authorization of these products.

The benefit-risk profile of previously authorized and approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is well understood as these vaccines have been administered to hundreds of millions of people in the United States.

That is a highly controversial statement. I disagree, Dr. Joe Ladapo disagrees, and regulatory oversight agencies from an increasing number of countries all over the world disagree. Just because the government and manufacturers have colluded to force hundreds of millions of people to accept these products (without informed consent) does not prove anything. Repeatedly stating a lie does not make it true. This is clearly propaganda.

The data demonstrate otherwise. The benefit-risk ratio is upside down. Little or no benefit, many well-documented risks. And immune imprinting. And negative effectiveness. And they DO NOT PREVENT infection, replication, and transmission of the virus to others. Herd immunity can never be achieved with these leaky vaccines. That was yet another Fauci (and Biden) lie.

And then there are the many analytical flaws in the cited data analyses. Which always seem to be biased in favor of vaccine effectiveness. For a deep dive into that, I recommend the following:

“The imprinting effect of covid-19 vaccines: an expected selection bias in observational studies” (Response)
BMJ2023;381doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-074404(Published 07 June 2023)Cite this as:BMJ2023;381:e074404 (article)

We need proper explanations for apparent COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness.

Dear Editor

A striking phenomenon regarding COVID-19 vaccines, referred to as ‘immune imprinting’ or the more specific ‘negative effectiveness,’ has been recently discussed here in The BMJ. 1 Referring to Chemaitelly et al., which indicated that those with 3 doses of vaccine were more likely to be infected than those with 2, 2 Monge et al. hypothesize that “the increased risk of reinfection in individuals vaccinated with a booster compared with no booster is the result” of a selection bias wherein those receiving the booster are those “more susceptible to reinfection;” a sort of counter to the hypothesized ‘healthy vaccinee bias.’ Apart from the article’s inconclusive conclusion that this phenomenon “may be fully explained by selection bias,” this hypothesis would not apply to all such studies.

For example, while it could be reasonable to suppose that people opting for dose 3 and beyond would tend to be at higher risk of COVID-19, and thus more prone to reinfection, it is not obvious that this would apply to the recent study on healthcare workers presented by Shrestha et al.3 This study reveals an even greater problem. The phenomenon is not limited to boosters but is also found when comparing those receiving 2 doses to those receiving 0. In fact, Shrestha et al. indicate that each dose up to 3+ resulted in increased infections. And there are many other studies showing this phenomenon, also with regards to hospitalizations and deaths, in addition to the now widely accepted rapid waning of effectiveness, when comparing the double-dosed to the unvaccinated, including another study with Chemaitelly as lead author.4 5 Several recently published papers also explain how counting window issues likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and safety estimates in both observational studies and clinical trials.6 7 8

The explanation offered up by Monge et al. fails. What we need is a proper explanation for perceived COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, by the vaccine manufacturers or drug regulators. We need to know if this has always been the case or only since Omicron, if the effect is dose-dependent, if certain groups are more at risk, etc. Otherwise, the notion that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweighs the risks is under threat. If the vaccines truly are negatively effective, it appears that the benefits do not outweigh the risks; there would be no benefits, and we simply add risks upon risks.

References
1. Monge S, Pastor-Barriuso R, Hernán MA. The imprinting effect of covid-19 vaccines: an expected selection bias in observational studies. BMJ. 2023;381:e074404. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-074404.
2. Chemaitelly H, Ayoub HH, Tang P, et al. Long-term COVID-19 booster effectiveness by infection history and clinical vulnerability and immune imprinting: a retrospective population-based cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2023;23:816-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00058-0.
3. Shrestha NK, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, et al. Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2023;10:ofad209. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad209.
4. Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, et al. Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;386:2201-12. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118946.
5. Chemaitelly H, Ayoub H, AlMukdad S, et al. Protection from previous natural infection compared with mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Qatar: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Microbe. 2022;3:e944-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00287-7.
6. Fung K, Jones M, Doshi P. Sources of bias in observational studies of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2023;1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13839.
7. Lataster R. Reply to Fung et al. on COVID-19 vaccine case-counting window biases overstating vaccine effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2023;1-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13892.
8. Doshi P, Fung K. How the case counting window affected vaccine efficacy calculations in randomized trials of COVID-19 vaccines. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2023;1-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13900.

“Long-term COVID-19 booster effectiveness by infection history and clinical vulnerability and immune imprinting: a retrospective population-based cohort study”
Lancet Infectious Diseases VOLUME 23, ISSUE 7, P816-827, JULY 2023

In the seventh month and thereafter, coincident with BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2·75* subvariant incidence, effectiveness was progressively negative albeit with wide CIs. Similar patterns of protection were observed irrespective of previous infection status, clinical vulnerability, or type of vaccine (BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273).

Interpretation
Protection against Omicron infection waned after the booster and eventually suggested a possibility for negative immune imprinting.

Interpretation

Protection against Omicron infection waned after the booster and eventually suggested a possibility for negative immune imprinting. However, boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination.

Sources of bias in observational studies of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness
Kaiser Fung MPhil, MBA, Mark Jones PhD, Peter Doshi PhD

In late 2020, messenger RNA (mRNA) covid-19 vaccines gained emergency authorization on the back of clinical trials reporting vaccine efficacy of around 95 percent,1, 2 kicking off mass vaccination campaigns around the world. Within 6 months, observational studies reporting vaccine effectiveness in the “real world” at above 90 percent, similar to trial results,3–6 became the trusted source of evidence upholding these campaigns. While the contemporary conversation about vaccine effectiveness has turned to waning protection, virus variants, and boosters, there has (with rare exception7) been surprisingly little discussion of the limitations of the methodologies of these early observational studies.

The lack of critical discussion is notable, for even highly effective vaccinations could only partially explain the drop in rates of covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by mid-2021. For example, by March 2021, cases in the UK and the United States had dropped roughly fourfold from the January peak, when the “fully vaccinated” population only reached 20 percent and 5 percent, respectively. At the same time, in Israel, cases took longer to drop despite a substantially faster vaccine rollout (Figure 1). The vaccination campaigns in these countries can thus only be part of the story.

“There’s been no clinical trial done in human beings showing that it benefits people… There’s been no clinical trial showing that it is a safe product for people — and not only that but then there are a lot of red flags.” ~ Surgeon General of Florida, Dr. Joe Ladapo

*****

This article was published by The Brownstone Institute 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.

Hunter’s Gun Charge Is A Big Problem For The Biden Crime Family thumbnail

Hunter’s Gun Charge Is A Big Problem For The Biden Crime Family

By Josh Hammer

Thursday’s indictment of presidential prodigal son Hunter Biden on three gun-related criminal counts is the latest twist in the long, winding and rapidly escalating saga that is the Biden crime family.

The indictment, served up by U.S. Attorney — and now “special counsel,” despite the fact 28 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 600.3 requires that a special counsel be “selected from outside the United States Government” — David C. Weiss, comes a month and a half after Weiss’ obfuscatory plea agreement was summarily rejected by Judge Maryellen Noreika. That prior plea deal, curiously, would have handled the same gun crimes for which Hunter has now been indicted with a slap-on-the-wrist pretrial diversion agreement. The fact is, Hunter transparently lied that he was “not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance” when he filled out a Firearms Transaction Record to purchase a Colt revolver in 2018. It is indisputable that Hunter was a drug addict at the time he purchased the firearm; he openly admitted as much in his ill-advised 2021 memoir.

True, the third count of Weiss’ indictment, invoking the federal provision (18 U.S. Code Sec. 922(g)(3)) that criminalizes possession of a firearm when one is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance,” is arguably unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence; in fact, just last month, a panel of the conservative-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held just that. But Delaware is not part of the Fifth Circuit, which only covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. A criminal defense on such grounds, moreover, would put someone named “Biden” in the highly ironic position of advancing a maximalist, National Rifle Association-style Second Amendment argument. And even if Hunter did make such an argument, the first two counts of the indictment would remain untouched. In sum, the three criminal counts could in theory — and assuredly only in theory — yield up to 25 years in the slammer. (RELATED: JOSH HAMMER: Biden Can’t Gaslight Struggling Americans Into Thinking His Economy Is Good)

At first blush, Weiss’ 180-degree turn over the course of a mere month and a half gives off the impression of someone who got their hand caught in the cookie jar, and who is now penitent. Under this theory of the case, Weiss was thoroughly embarrassed by Judge Noreika’s rejection of his murky, sweetheart plea agreement, and he now seeks to redeem himself. That is a plausible explanation, but it is probably wrong.

Zoom out a little bit. Earlier this week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the commencement of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, the “big guy” implicated in Hunter’s myriad shady overseas business dealings. There is increasing evidence that Joe knew all about, at minimum, and probably even personally profited from Hunter’s foreign dalliances with Ukrainian oligarchs, Romanian tycoons, Chinese investors, and others. At the same time, the senescent octogenarian faces increasingly vocal calls from Democratic Party voters, ruling class elites, and Regime-approved media apparatchiks alike to pack it in and not seek reelection next November. On Tuesday evening, for instance, Regime stenographer David Ignatius used his Washington Post column to argue, in a straightforwardly titled enough manner: “President Biden should not run again in 2024.”

Perhaps Hunter had a little chat with his father, wherein Don Corleone — sorry, the president of the United States — instructed his addlebrained son to take one for the team and be a useful fall guy. The Weiss indictment sure does make for a nice, shiny distraction amidst all the smoke now engulfing the “big guy.” Is this indictment intended to make McCarthy and House Republicans forget about the impeachment inquiry they just opened? Even worse, is this where the Weiss “special counsel” probe somehow ends — thus letting Hunter off scot-free for his significantly more dastardly, possibly money laundering- or Foreign Agents Registration Act-implicating business pursuits overseas?

Ultimately and perhaps most importantly, the Biden Regime’s handling of the Hunter indictment will tell us everything we need to know about the Regime’s nature. It will be a moment of truth — a “put up or shut up” moment. If Weiss ends his investigation here, content with his firearms charges and willing to look the other way as to Hunter’s presidential impeachment-adjacent foreign bribery and corruption, then the Regime will necessarily vindicate the conservatives who have long lambasted its “two-tier system of justice.” That same conclusion also holds if Hunter somehow avoids all jail time, in a possible future plea agreement, for firearms offenses that would certainly land anyone else in prison for years.

Weiss’ indictment has thus clarified the stakes. We all now know what is on the line — and it isn’t just Hunter’s fate as a free man.

Game on.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation 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.

AAPS Study Says Government Mask Mandates Failed and Caused Harm thumbnail

AAPS Study Says Government Mask Mandates Failed and Caused Harm

By Neland Nobel

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, which represents independent doctors, has issued a new and important study.

Based in Tucson, the most recent study came out on September 12th and concluded that masks not only did not work, but their required use by health bureaucrats was actually additionally harmful.

Here is a partial rendering of their findings:

“Government recommendations and mandates regarding face coverings have been contradictory, provided to the public as authoritative without evidence, are in conflict with the available data, and neglect to mention any potential harm from the use of coverings or masks.

Concerning efficacy, in addition to the indisputable failure of mask mandates to prevent outbreaks of COVID, the Cochrane systematic review of available empirical evidence concluded that studies “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks,” and  “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

Concerning the potential for harm, there are at least 60 studies and reports that illuminate the downsides of masking and face-coverings in different scenarios and among varied patient groups. Examples of harm found in the peer-reviewed literature, include:

  • Prolonged use of masks is not a neutral event and in fact, can cause harm. “Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed.”
  • Findings indicate that wearing the N95 mask for 14 hours significantly affected the physiological, biochemical, and perception parameters in a negative fashion.
  • The possibility that masks hinder the acquisition of speech and language in children exists. “Overall, the research to date demonstrates that the visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills. Research also shows that babies who lip-read more have better language skills when they’re older. If so, this suggests that masks probably hinder babies’ acquisition of speech and language.”
  • Experimental data has shown “carbon dioxide content in inhaled air rises on average to 13,000 to 13,750 ppm no matter whether children wear a surgical or an FFP2 mask. This is far beyond the level of 2,000 ppm considered the limit of acceptability and beyond the 1,000 ppm that are normal for air in closed rooms. This estimate is rather on the low side, as we only measured this after a short time without physical exertion.”
  • Society requires facial recognition as a most basic component of interaction and communication. Studies in individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have shown that “Poor face perception in AMD is an important domain contributing to impaired social interactions and quality of life”.  Voluntary masking with no gain contributes to societal alienation.”

This most recent study comes at a time when mask-wearing is seeing a surge in use as Covid once again is becoming more frequent.

At The Prickly Pear we feel if a person wishes to wear a mask, even as an amulet to ward off evil spirits, that is up to the individual.  They are only harming themselves. However,  the scientific data does not warrant government-enforced mandates or compulsions imposed by private parties.

Although we feel mask-wearing should be permitted, it still is not recommended because the negative trade-offs are not offset by effective protection.

Mask mandates are a prime example of the reason people have lost faith in both government officials and the medical establishment which abandoned science, the Hippocratic Oath, and common sense, all for the approval and funding of the government.

TAKE ACTION

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

Navy Puts The Kibosh On Digital Recruiting Program After Discovering Enlistees Aren’t Into Drag Queens thumbnail

Navy Puts The Kibosh On Digital Recruiting Program After Discovering Enlistees Aren’t Into Drag Queens

By Shawn Fleetwood

The U.S. Navy confirmed on Tuesday it has discontinued an online recruiting initiative featuring an enlisted drag queen that was aimed at bringing new sailors into the service.

In May, The Daily Caller revealed that the Navy brought on Yeoman 2nd Class Joshua Kelley — an active-duty drag queen who goes by the stage name Harpy Daniels and identifies as non-binary — to be a “Navy Digital Ambassador.” The Digital Ambassador Pilot Program, which ran from October 2022 to March 2023, was reportedly “designed to explore the digital environment to reach a wide range of potential candidates” for military recruitment.

In a letter sent to Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., on Tuesday, Erik Raven, the under-secretary of the Navy, confirmed that the branch’s Digital Ambassador Pilot Program “will not be continued.”

“The Navy learned lessons from the pilot program that will inform our digital engagement and outreach going forward,” Raven wrote. “Our digital outreach efforts will maintain the important distinction between Sailors’ official activities and their personal lives.”

[RELATED: Legal Group Demands Navy Investigate Active-Duty Drag Queen For Allegedly Violating Military Protocol]

Tuberville — who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee — previously sent a letter to Admiral Michael M. Gilday, the chief of Naval Operations, in May, demanding to know the identities of the officers tasked with funding and promoting drag queen shows aboard naval vessels. The letter was sent the same day the Alabama senator and his Republican colleagues submitted a separate communique to Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro on the branch’s embrace of Daniels and whether Navy leadership is encouraging its “digital ambassadors” and public affairs personnel to use TikTok — which the Pentagon banned its members from using on government-issued devices — “on their personal devices” in order to skirt the agency’s prohibition.

In his Tuesday letter to Tuberville, Raven claimed the Navy followed existing guidelines restricting the use of TikTok and that while some sailors partaking in the digital ambassador program “had [a] personal social media presence on TikTok,” the branch did not issue government devices for purposes of participating in the venture. Raven further contended the branch will “continue to communicate” to its members the “national security risks associated with their use of TikTok on personal devices.”

The Navy’s embrace of Daniels — which generated backlash among many military veterans — comes amid the branch’s failure to meet existing recruiting targets. On Thursday, acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti confirmed that the Navy is expected to miss its fiscal year 2023 recruiting goals by roughly 7,000 sailors. The revelation came days after the Air Force announced it would miss its “active-duty recruiting goals for the first time since 1999.”

The U.S. Army and Coast Guard are also expected to miss their respective fiscal year 2023 recruiting targets.

*****

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.

Judge Deals the Free Enterprise Club an Important Win Over [AZ Secretary of State] Fontes’ Illegal Signature Verification Process thumbnail

Judge Deals the Free Enterprise Club an Important Win Over [AZ Secretary of State] Fontes’ Illegal Signature Verification Process

By AZ Free News

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears to be in a tug-of-war with Governor Katie Hobbs to determine who is worse at their job. It’s been well-documented that since she took office, Hobbs has been off to a rough start with high-profile staff exits, breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” and alienating many Democrats by signing the Republican budget. But over the past eight months, Fontes has been working just as hard in the battle to see who’s more incompetent. Not only has he failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance—leaving 14 Arizona counties in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act—but he rushed through a version of the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is filled with unlawful provisions.

Now, Secretary of State Fontes has been dealt another major blow after a superior court judge ruled that he and his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs) enforced an EPM requirement that contained an unlawful voter signature verification process.

Currently in Arizona, early ballot voters are only required to prove their identity by signing the exterior of the envelope that contains their ballot. That process is already problematic enough, which is why the Free Enterprise Club has been a strong advocate for universal voter ID in elections. But Hobbs’ EPM, which has been upheld by Fontes, essentially rewrote state law to make invalid voting easier.

Under Arizona statute, an envelope signature is supposed to match the signature on the voter’s registration record. If it doesn’t, the country recorder must contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature, and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. But Hobbs’ EPM instructs county recorders to validate early ballot affidavits if they determine the signature matches any election-related document available to them. This not only rewrites state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots, but it creates a process that invites dubious methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process.

That’s why the Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes after he failed to reject Hobbs’ EPM earlier this year. Fontes and a left-wing group called Mi Familia Vota (represented by Hillary Clinton Lawyer Marc Elias) responded by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming to the court that the term “registration record” was ambiguous and up for interpretation. Essentially, they were arguing that he could decide what constituted a valid signature record for the purpose of verifying a ballot signature. On top of that, Fontes petitioned the court to interpret the law to mean that other documents could be included in the definition of “registration record.”

But Judge John Napper saw through those arguments and rejected Fontes’ motion to dismiss earlier this month. He told Fontes that the statute is clear and unambiguous, and he stated that only a voter’s signature used to register to vote is valid.

While the case isn’t over yet (we anticipate that Fontes will appeal), this is a great development as we move forward. The judge ruled in our favor on all questions of law. And we will keep fighting this case all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure a final victory for the integrity of our elections.

*****

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.

No, Governor, Rights Are NOT Government-Issued Privileges That You Can Suspend thumbnail

No, Governor, Rights Are NOT Government-Issued Privileges That You Can Suspend

By Connor O’Keeffe

Editors’ Note: Governor Grisham’s ill-fated attempt to repeal the Second Amendment by decree has not gone well either in the Courts or with the local sheriff. Additionally, while she must have felt she would feel the glow of national media praise, the whole gambit has turned into a public relations disaster. But the back story is her appalling ignorance about the nature of rights and from whence they come. The right to self-defense is perhaps the most basic right of all, for without it,  you can’t defend life or the property that sustains it. The fact that leaders as high as governors can attain such power in our Constitutional system while maintaining such striking levels of ignorance, speaks volumes about the problems with our current politics.

On Friday, September 8, Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, announced a new public health order suspending the right to carry firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for at least thirty days.

The New Mexico governor announced the thirty-day suspension at a press conference. Citing the shooting deaths of three children in Albuquerque this summer, Grisham declared “a public health emergency,” which she says gives her the authority to suspend the right to carry firearms in the surrounding county for thirty days.

In front of reporters, Grisham was quick to acknowledge some obvious problems with the order. She admits that the order will not have much of an effect on the level of gun violence in Albuquerque. She instead stressed the symbolism of the measure.

When asked if she really thought that criminals—like those who committed the shootings she cited—would comply and not carry a gun in Albuquerque, Governor Grisham said that she didn’t but thought the motion was a “pretty resounding message.”

Grisham also repeatedly said she expected the motion to be challenged in court. Her demeanor suggested that the entire purpose of the executive order was to spur a legal fight. The governor spent much of the press conference pontificating about a constitutional right to be safe and presented the Second Amendment as incompatible with that right.

Grisham is distorting how rights work to justify her program. She frames rights as a handful of unrelated positive freedoms granted to citizens by the government, which can revoke them during emergencies or when they conflict with rights that government officials deem more important.

In reality, rights are derived from self-ownership. We alone have the highest claim to our own bodies. That right is absolute, so any aggression against our bodies is a rights violation that can be justly resisted or punished proportionately.

And from self-ownership, we can derive the just ownership of property. Self-ownership gives you the highest claim to the fruits of your labor. Unowned resources can justly become owned through homesteading—mixing your labor with unowned natural resources. Once these resources are owned, they can be justly transferred as gifts or through voluntary exchange. Because they are derived from self-ownership, property rights are absolute, meaning any violation can be justly resisted or punished proportionately.

We can see, then, that the right not to be harmed and the right to own property do not conflict—they are variations of the same fundamental right. This is especially evident when the property in question equips us to better protect ourselves and our other property. That’s the case with firearms. The debate Grisham calls for is built on a lie.

The governor is trying to account for the government’s failures to protect people, a service it monopolizes, by violating the property rights of Bernalillo County citizens. She understands this is probably illegal and at the press conference even called herself courageous for moving ahead anyway. Even though, unlike the rest of us outside of government, she wouldn’t face consequences if it were determined that what she’s doing is illegal. She’d, at most, be told to stop.

Or so she thought. Instead, over the weekend, the gun owners of Bernalillo County took to the streets, carrying their weapons peacefully in protest. And the Albuquerque police chief and Bernalillo County sheriff issued statements saying they would not enforce the governor’s order. Because it violates the rights of citizens and draws resources away from preventing real crimes.

That’s real courage.

*****

This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute 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.