More Than Half of U.S. States Vow to Fight Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

Twenty-seven Republican governors or attorneys general have vowed to fight the latest executive order issued by President Joe Biden mandating that over 80 million private employees receive COVID vaccinations or undergo weekly testing, or their employer will be fined.

The executive order directs the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require private businesses with more than 100 employees mandate that their workers receive both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing. Noncompliance would result in fines of $14,000 per violation.

The governors who’ve expressed opposition include those from Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Republican attorneys general from states with Democratic governors who also vowed to fight include Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, with whom Biden has sparred over mask mandates and vaccine passports, said Florida would fight back.

“When you have a president like Biden issuing unconstitutional edicts against the American people, we have a responsibility to stand up for the Constitution and to fight back, and we are doing that in the state of Florida,” he said. “This is a president who has acknowledged in the past he does not have the authority to force this on anybody, and this order would result potentially in millions of Americans losing their jobs.”

Texas, which is already embroiled in several lawsuits with the Biden administration, vowed to sue. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said after hearing Biden’s announcement that “Texas is already working to halt this power grab” and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Texas would be suing the Biden administration “very soon.”

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said, “OSHA cannot dictate personal health care decisions for Missourians. Missouri is not under an OSHA state plan, and Parson will not allow state employees to be used to enforce this unconstitutional action.”

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster vowed to fight Biden, saying, “The American Dream has turned into a nightmare under President Biden and the radical Democrats. They have declared war against capitalism, thumbed their noses at the Constitution, and empowered our enemies abroad. Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey said, “Governors don’t report to Joe Biden. Governors don’t report to the federal government, the states created the federal government, and Joe Biden has stepped out of his reach,” Ducey said. “These mandates are outrageous. They will never stand up in court. We must and will push back.”

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita indicated he was working with a group of AGs to file a lawsuit. “My team and I, along with other like-minded attorneys general, are reviewing all legal action on how to stand against these authoritarian actions by the Biden administration,” he said in a statement.

The Republican National Committee also announced it was suing “to protect Americans and their liberties” if the proposed rule change were to go into effect.

In response to Republican pushback, White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond, a former Democratic congressman from Louisiana, told CNN the White House expected the opposition.

He said, “… those governors that stand in the way, I think, it was very clear from the president’s tone today that he will run over them. And it is important. It’s not for political purposes. It’s to save the lives of American people. And so, we won’t let one or two individuals stand in the way. We will always err on the side of protecting the American people.”

*****

This article was published on September 14, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

The Death of the Global Cop

America’s foreign policy drowns at the water’s edge.

What follows is what I consider the main practical consideration for understanding the international predicament of the United States today. This analysis is largely drawn from my handbook, A Student’s Guide to International Relations, and my forthcoming book on the teachings of John Quincy Adams.

Here and now, more than usual, a nation’s relation with others flows less from choices about policy than it does from the character of its people and ruling class. Scarcely any foreign policy is possible for a people who hate one another. All but the most basic functions are beyond being supported by a population—of ever lower intellectual and moral capacity—that has lost confidence in its leaders. Today’s U.S. ruling class is thoroughly corrupt and absorbed in domestic revolution. No serious statesmen would display their own country’s internal divisions as does the U.S. by flying the LGBT flag. It is not reasonable to expect foreigners to take seriously American statesmen who do not take seriously their own country’s unity and interests.

Having witnessed the abandon with which the ruling class abstracted from reality to weaponize U.S. relations with Russia, it is impossible to imagine that it would refrain from doing the same with any other matter that it deemed convenient. U.S. relations with China depend on various Chinese interests’ outright purchase of practical allegiance up and down and throughout America’s political and social hierarchy. The opera buffa with regard to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline shouts that U.S. words and deeds are thin cover for actions actually driven by coincidences of U.S. and German personal interests. In that regard, the coziness between the U.S. and European ruling class simply reflects what concerns both equally, namely fighting off populist pressures against increasingly intolerable mal-government.

*****

Continue reading this article published  August 11, 2021 at The American Mind.

AAPS Asks Pima County Supervisors to Reject COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

On Sept 7, the Pima County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal to mandate that all healthcare workers in Pima County licensed by the State of Arizona, and their direct support staff, be vaccinated against COVID-19. The original deadline for beginning the vaccination process was Sept 1. Employers of the workers would be required to file compliance documents with the Department of Health. The consequences for non-compliance have not yet been spelled out.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) submitted written testimony objecting to “the proposal to violate the fundamental human rights of all citizens associated with healthcare by forcing them to take an injection without voluntary informed consent.”

AAPS notes that all the COVID-19 injections are experimental and that studies are not scheduled for completion before the end of 2022. The only FDA-approved product, which is generally unavailable here, is Comirnaty made by BioNTech in Mainz, Germany. The manufacturer is required to conduct post-marketing studies of adverse effects including myocarditis, with a 5-year follow-up.

The Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccines are only available under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), AAPS notes, and are supposed to be fully voluntary.

Many workers have had COVID-19 and are thus already immune, and the majority are at low risk of a poor outcome if they are infected. They may therefore judge that the risks of the vaccine outweigh any benefit, AAPS states. Also, the vaccine may not prevent transmission.

“Patients in Pima County are already reporting difficulty in accessing medical care of any kind,” AAPS reports. “If personnel are diminished because of declining to accept the COVID product or because of vaccine-related disability or death, tremendous preventable death and suffering will occur.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient.

*****

This article was published on September 7, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Masks, and the Deadly Falsehoods Surrounding Them

In a terse essay titled “Science and Dictatorship,” Albert Einstein warned that “Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.” And on his deathbed, Einstein cautioned, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs.”

With reckless disregard for both of those principles, powerful government officials and big tech executives have corrupted or suppressed the central scientific facts about face masks. The impacts of this extend far beyond the issue of masks and have caused widespread harm and countless deaths.

Despite the fog of contradictory claims and changing government guidelines, dozens of scientific journals have published consistent data that establish these facts:

  • Covid-19 is mainly spread by microscopic aerosols generated by breathing, talking, sneezing, and coughing. The vast bulk of these infectious aerosols easily penetrate common masks because 90% of the aerosols are less than 1/17th the size of pores in the finest surgical masks, and less than 1/80th the size of pores in the finest cloth masks.
  • Aerosols are light enough to stay airborne for minutes or hours, and hence, they also travel freely through gaps around the edges of cloth and surgical masks.
  • Governments enacted mask mandates based on the false assumption that C-19 is mainly transmitted by large droplets generated by coughing, sneezing, and spittle. These droplets are bigger than the pore sizes of most masks and only remain airborne for a few seconds after they are emitted.
  • For more than a year, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention denied and downplayed the threat of aerosol transmission while issuing guidelines that don’t amply prevent it. This enabled C-19 to decimate the most vulnerable members of society, like those in hospitals and nursing homes.
  • The CDC and WHO quietly admitted in the spring of 2021 that aerosols pose a major threat of transmission but have still not adequately updated their guidelines to reflect this reality. This has allowed countless preventable deaths to continue.
  • The risk of aerosol transmission can be greatly reduced by disinfecting air with ultraviolent (UV) light, which is part of the energy spectrum emitted by the sun. This simple and safe technology neutralizes airborne microbes and has been successfully used to control the spread of contagious respiratory diseases for more than 80 years.
  • Randomized controlled trials—which are the “gold standard” for clinical research—have repeatedly measured the effects of masks on preventing the spread of contagious respiratory diseases. These trials have found inconsistent benefits from N95 masks in healthcare settings and no statistically significant benefits from any type of mask in community settings.
  • The only randomized controlled trial that evaluated cloth masks found that mandating them causes significant disease transmission in high-risk healthcare settings.
  • Observational studies—which are a weaker form of evidence than randomized controlled trials—find that masking schoolchildren provides negligible or no benefits.
  • Lab studies—which are the weakest form of clinical evidence—don’t support the notion that surgical or cloth masks reduce the transmission of Covid-19.
  • Masks of all types have negative impacts on some people, including headaches, difficulty breathing, increased cardio-pulmonary stress during exercise, marked discomfort, and weakened social bonds.
  • Because humans create carbon dioxide as they breathe, the CO2 concentration of the air they exhale is about 100 times higher than in fresh air. Masks restrict airflow and thus cause the wearers to rebreathe some of the air they exhale.
  • The average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing N95 masks range from 2.6 to 7.0 times OSHA’s work shift limit for CO2. These levels cause headaches and chest pains in some people.
  • The average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing cloth and surgical masks range from 2 to 3 times the government CO2 limits for classrooms in many countries. These levels may impair certain high-level brain functions like initiative, strategic thinking, and complex decision-making.

The leaders of big tech corporations like Facebook, Twitter, and Google/YouTube have empowered government officials who misled the public about every matter above and others. Together, they continue to do so by engaging in actions that resemble common disinformation tactics. These include but are not limited to cherry-picking, censorship, muddying the waterscitation bluffsnon-sequiturs, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

Summary

With remarkable consistency, the comprehensive facts detailed above prove that:

  • governments enacted mask mandates based on the false assumption that Covid-19 is mainly transmitted by large droplets that are bigger than the pore sizes of most masks and only remain airborne for a few seconds.
  • Covid-19 is mainly spread by microscopic aerosols that remain airborne for minutes or hours, easily penetrate common masks, and travel freely through gaps around their edges.
  • the CDC and WHO minimized the threat of aerosol transmission for more than a year while issuing guidelines that left people vulnerable to this mortal danger.
  • the CDC and WHO finally admitted that aerosols pose a major threat of transmission but tried to cover their tracks and failed to adequately update their guidelines—thus allowing countless preventable deaths to continue to this day.
  • UV disinfection systems are highly effective at killing airborne viruses and have been successfully used to control the spread of contagious respiratory diseases for more than 80 years.
  • the strongest and most relevant studies have found inconsistent benefits from N95 masks in healthcare settings and no statistically significant benefits from any type of mask in community settings.
  • the CDC is scraping the bottom of the scientific barrel by cherry picking and distorting low-quality and unrealistic studies to support the claim that masks control the spread of C-19.
  • masks of all types, and especially N95s, cause headaches, difficulty breathing, increased cardio-pulmonary stress during exercise, marked discomfort, and weakened social bonds.
  • the average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing masks are far above what many governments permit for indoor settings, and this may impair certain high-level brain functions like initiative, strategic thinking, and complex decision-making.
  • Google/YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are acting as a megaphone of the deadly falsehoods propagated by the CDC and WHO while silencing their critics.

*****

Read the entire article published September 13, 2021 at Just Facts. Seize The Data.

Arizona First In Nation to Sue Biden Over COVID Vaccine Mandate

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has fired the opening salvo in the anticipated legal fight over President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

Brnovich filed the lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, claiming Biden’s mandate violates the Equal Protection Clause by favoring migrants who can decline the vaccine, “protecting their freedom and bodily autonomy more than American citizens’.”

“The federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda,” Brnovich said in a statement. “There can be no serious or scientific discussion about containing the spread of COVID-19 that doesn’t begin at our southern border.”

Biden announced the prominent aspects of his COVID-19 plan last week, saying all federal employees and those who do business with the federal government, in addition to any private employer with 100 or more workers, must be vaccinated as a condition of employment or face rigorous testing.

Although it’s not yet active, Brnovich’s lawsuit directly contrasts the coming mandate with the lack of a similar requirement for immigrants who enter the U.S. from Mexico.

“In a nutshell: unauthorized aliens will not be subject to any vaccination requirements even when released directly into the United States (where most will remain), while roughly a hundred million U.S. citizens will be subject to unprecedented vaccination requirements,” the lawsuit said.

Brnovich estimated 1 in 5 immigrants who illegally cross the southern border are infected with COVID-19.

Brnovich’s complaint also calls out White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain for retweeting a statement regarding how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate is the “ultimate work-around” for a federal COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

The U.S. Border Patrol estimated more than 212,000 people crossed the border into the U.S. illegally in July.

Brnovich is running as a Republican for U.S. Senate.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Friday he also plans to sue Biden over the mandate.

*****

This article was published on September 14, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square .

The Future of American Cars Is Not All-Electric

Environmental elites like to cast their creeds as unshakeable and their doctrines as inevitable. Take these three: The Earth is only getting hotter, human survival depends upon radical lifestyle changes, and governments are taking action on the climate whether we like it or not.

Or this: America will slowly phase out all oil, natural gas, and coal energy for wind turbines and solar panels—and, for a handful of brave dissidents, nuclear power plants. In this carbon-free future, everyone will drive an electric car powered by alternative energy sources. There’s no room for alternatives or debate, only submission to the wisdom of the climatistas. It’s the inexorable march of progress—right?

Don’t be so sure.

Not Enough “Green” Electricity

In August, the Biden administration announced its goal to have zero-emission electric vehicles (EVs) account for 50 percent of all cars sold by 2030, mirroring “green” California’s decision a year ago to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

EVs currently make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. automobile market and are rapidly growing, with Tesla leading the pack. With nowhere to go but up, one would think that a government mandate would be a godsend for car manufacturers. So why is Toyota—maker of the famous hybrid Prius and the world’s largest car manufacturer—lobbying against the plan?

Left-wing observers have explained away the company’s lobbying campaign as an effort to stall stiff competition from full-electric vehicle manufacturers. Toyota’s hybrids use both gasoline and electricity, and Toyota has been slow to break into the full-electric vehicle market. After all, company spokesmen say the manufacturer wholeheartedly believes in an all-electric future.

There’s a simpler explanation: There isn’t enough “green” electricity to power that vision.

The average EV consumes 30 kilowatt-hours (kw/h) to travel 100 miles, which Pew Charitable Trusts notes is “the same amount of electricity an average American home uses each day to run appliances, computers, lights and heating and air conditioning.” That is extra electricity required from the grid—not produced by your traditional fuel-burning car—that must be produced from another resource. But from which energy source?

The U.S. electric grid gets 86 percent of its power from sources deemed unacceptable to the environmental Left: natural gas (40 percent), coal (19 percent), hydropower from dams (7.3 percent), and—horror of horrors—nuclear energy (20 percent). The widely acclaimed alternatives—wind (8.4 percent), solar (2.3 percent), and geothermal (0.4 percent)—make up just 11.1 percent of the country’s electricity generation.

Even if eco-activists got past their revulsion for nuclear energy, that still leaves the nation with a huge electricity deficit that wind turbines and solar panels hooked up to lithium batteries simply cannot fill. Not only would mining the tons of metals and minerals required to build them by the thousands create a genuine ecological disaster and possibly a “permanent” lithium shortage by 2025, it would doom the electric grid almost the minute the sun dips or the wind stops blowing.

“Green” Energy’s Gas Problem

Unlike natural gas, solar and wind generate power intermittently, not continuously, so they need to be backed up by a reliable energy source—almost invariably natural gas. Every wind turbine and solar panel built means pumping more natural gas to ensure a steady supply of electricity. In an honest world, we’d call wind and solar “supplemental” sources, not “alternatives.”

Little wonder that so many Big Oil companies are rapidly becoming Big Gas producers while boasting about their commitments to fighting climate change—global warming is great for business. “Climapocalypse” rhetoric from professional activists creates a powerful incentive for government regulation by “selfless” politicians, whose legislation is favorably shaped by well-funded industry lobbyists.

What Toyota and other sober minds see is a twofold problem: the Biden administration’s proposal to convert traditional cars to EVs to stop global warming is effectively a proposal to massively expand nationwide electricity production—an unlikely outcome made impossible when “green energy” mandates are added to the mix. That’s a bet that they’re not willing to take, especially when eco-activists are now demanding bans on low-carbon natural gas.

A Dim Future

But as RealClearEnergy editor Jude Clemente points out, even if environmental fundamentalists got their way, oil will continue to be critical to fueling airplanes, heavy trucks, petrochemicals, and even the production of wind and solar technologies—with no viable alternative in sight. What will change is the average American’s access to cheap and abundant electricity.

We already have an example in Germany, writes Clemente, where climate change policies have made electricity a “luxury good” for citizens of the industrial powerhouse–turned–Green Man of Europe and a cold snap in February left some 30,000 solar panels and wind turbines frozen over and utterly worthless for the shivering Germans who rely on them.

In December 2020, Tesla CEO Elon Musk warned the world that “electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified.” If all that extra electricity must come from so-called alternatives, we’re in for a nightmare. Francis Menton has calculated the cost of powering just California’s power needs with solar panels (the state’s strategy to meet its EV mandate) at his blog, Manhattan Contrarion:

If 180 days per year have less production than usage, and the average shortfall of production on each of those days is 300 GWH, then you will need 54,000 GWH worth of batteries (180 x 300). At $200 per KWH, that will run you around $10+ trillion. This would be about triple the annual GDP of the state of California [emphasis added].

None of this is to claim EVs have no place on America’s future highways. As Edward Ring writes in American Greatness, electric motors have much to recommend them, such as a simpler design and better horsepower than internal combustion engines, lower maintenance requirements, and longer lifespans. Electric cars will undoubtedly continue to make up some portion of the vehicle fleet for the foreseeable future, even if their growth may leave the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy supplies and not prove to be as much of a spur to innovation as experts once believed, according to my colleague Michael Watson.

Rather, we shouldn’t allow the Left to warp our decisions about the future of the nation’s electric grid with their blind ideology disguised as science—there’s too much at stake.

*****

This article was published on September 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

End of Federal Unemployment Raises Questions About Fraud, Joblessness

Federal unemployment benefits ended over the holiday weekend, raising questions about how the payments’ expiration will affect the job market and whether Congress will renew the benefits.

Congress passed the $300 weekly unemployment payments as a remedy to joblessness during the COVID pandemic when government restrictions forced the layoffs of millions of Americans, but critics have since said the federal benefits are contributing to an economic quandary: elevated unemployment alongside widespread job availability.

In fact, recent U.S. employment data showed more open jobs than workers to fill them. Those employment concerns, along with evidence of widespread fraud in the system, have made the unemployment program a harder sell in Congress.

So far, President Joe Biden has not pushed for a renewal of the federal benefits. While some progressive Democrats have called for legislation making the payments permanent, as of now it seems unlikely.

Now that the benefits have expired, some experts predict that unemployment will decrease.

“The latest job report tells us what many Americans already know: the American economy is being held back by federal unemployment bonuses and expansions that are paying people more to stay home than work,” said Hayden Dublois, an expert at the Foundation for Government Accountability. “States that have ended participation in federal enhanced unemployment programs and bonuses have seen new hires increase, the number of work registrants spike, both unemployment claims and spending decline, and economic activity skyrocket. The American economic recovery has been stagnated by policymakers’ unwillingness to end these bonuses up until this point – but, with enhanced benefits expiring … labor markets will finally have a chance to rebound. It’s long past time to get America back to work.”

The August jobs report released last week showed nonfarm jobs increased by only 235,000, less than a third of the 720,000 new jobs predicted by Dow Jones economic experts. Experts pointed to this most recent job report, another disappointing one for the year, and put the blame squarely at the feet of the federal unemployment payments.

“The exact size of [Unemployment insurance’s] effect on labor supply and the social benefits of UI are impossible to know (and they likely change according to context), but there is broad consensus that increased UI benefits discourage some workers’ return to employment,” wrote Michael Farren, an expert at the Mercatus Center.

“The concern that the federal expansions to UI reduce the likelihood that workers will return to employment is based on the understanding that unconditional monetary grants to unemployed workers tend to raise their reservation wage – the compensation level necessary for the worker to take a job,” Farren added. “UI programs are typically designed to mitigate this potential effect by replacing only a portion of workers’ preunemployment income (up to some income limit). However, the additional weekly benefits provided by FPUC (as well as the American Rescue Plan’s exemption of $10,200 of UI benefits from federal income tax) means that many low-wage workers saw no decrease in their weekly income (and some even saw an increase).”

Meanwhile, unemployment fraud has become a major source of concern among lawmakers as more and more cases arise of criminals siphoning off funds.

The Department of Justice released details about another case of unemployment fraud Tuesday. Virginia man Johnny Hobbs, along with other coconspirators, allegedly filed false claims for unemployment benefits totaling nearly $800,000.

“Conspirators submitted claims for various individuals who were known to be ineligible to receive pandemic unemployment benefits by making materially false representations,” the Department of Justice said. “Hobbs pleaded guilty last week to one count of conspiracy to defraud the government of the United States and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He is scheduled to be sentenced on December 10, 2021 and faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison.”

Hobbs’ case is just the latest of many instances of fraudulent abuse of the system, something that has been criticized by lawmakers in both parties.

Most recently, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office calling for an investigation into the level of fraud and how it occurred.

Those members, who estimate the fraud totaled between $89 billion and $400 billion, call it the “greatest theft of American tax dollars in our nation’s history.”

“It is concerning that responsibility for determining how much fraud has occurred lies scattered throughout a web of bureaucracies,” the letter read. “The scattering of responsibilities suggests that Congress will be ill equipped to have adequate information to assess future unemployment insurance responses to large economic shocks; and, at the same time, ensure they are not plagued by gaping security holes that allow fraudsters an open window to use to unlawfully obtained taxpayer funds.”

*****

This article was published on September 7, 2021 and is reproduced courtesy of The Center Square.

 

Stronger, More Robust Natural Immunity Thwarts Any Case for “Vaccine Passports”

Editors’ Note:  One striking omission in Joe Biden’s new Covid mandates is he ignored over 160 million people (about half the population) who have already had the virus. Besides the liberty issue, there is simply the medical question: Why vaccinate those with already stronger immunity and risk the side effects? That is the trouble with one size fits all, dictatorial edicts from a chief executive trying to take your eyes off the disaster in Afghanistan.

 

A growing body of research is making it increasingly clear that natural immunity to Covid-19 owing to previous infection is stronger, more durable, and broader than vaccine-induced immunity. Apart from not being unusual among infectious diseases, this fact has significant implications for governmental, school, employer, and business plans to harass and restrict people who aren’t vaccinated.

For example, on June 4 Stanford Medical School physician and economist Jay Bhattacharya, Harvard Medical School biostatistician and epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, and University of Oxford theoretical epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta summarized it this way (embedding several studies along the way):

It is now well-established that natural immunity develops upon infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a manner analogous to other coronaviruses. While natural infection may not provide permanent infection-blocking immunity, it offers antidisease immunity against severe disease and death that is likely permanent. Among the millions that have recovered from COVID19, exceedingly few have become sick again.

Most recently, new research out of Israel makes the case that a prior Covid-19 infection offers far superior immunity than do the vaccinations. Gazit et al. (medRxiv preprint, posted Aug. 25, 2021) compared vaccinated people without prior Covid-19 infections with unvaccinated people who had recovered from prior infections. Matching them by infection/vaccination periods to test their “immune activation” time (16,125 people in each group; i.e., 32,250 people), they found the vaccinated were six to 13 times more likely to have breakthrough infections than were naturally immune to have reinfection. Adjusting for comorbidities, they found the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to have symptomatic breakthrough infections than were the naturally immune to have symptomatic reinfection.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that for the previously infected, vaccination could be detrimental to their immune response. Camara et al. (bioRxiv preprint, posted March 22, 2021) found that “COVID-19 recovered individuals do not seem to benefit from the standard regimen for COVID-19 vaccination.” As they wrote, “On the contrary, in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine does not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” For the previously infected, then, there is reason to believe that the vaccine poses no benefits, only costs.

George Mason law professor Todd Zywicki had several compelling reasons behind his successful challenge to his university’s vaccine mandate. As seen by the July 21 letter on his behalf from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Zywicki was previously infected, offered substantial research attesting that immunity to Covid-19 through infection was “at least as robust and long-lasting as that achieved through vaccination,” had evidence to be wary of adverse reactions given his recent bout with shingles, and was also concerned that all of the vaccine trials so far have specifically excluded survivors of prior Covid-19 infections, citing a study in which researchers stated, “we cannot exclude the possibility that the vaccination of a growing number of [individuals] with preexisting immunity to SARS-Cov-2 may trigger unexpectedly intense, albeit very rare, inflammatory and thrombotic reactions in previously immunized and predisposed individuals” (Angeli et al., European Journal of Internal Medicine, June 2021).

It shouldn’t need to be said, except in this bizarre time in which things that “shouldn’t need to be said” are the very things that require clear statement, but such research and discussion is in no way meant to counsel against vaccination, which ought to be a personal decision based on a dispassionate weighing of personal benefits and costs without coercion. Nor is it to argue for deliberately contracting an infection. I have personally witnessed this presentation of facts carom around inside someone’s skull until it comes out bruised and twisted into “Oh sure, go get Covid and die, then you’ll be immune!”

These findings stand in stark contrast to the case for “vaccine passports,” the euphemism for depersoning anyone who hasn’t taken a vaccine against Covid-19. Pres. Joe Biden has talked of banning interstate travel to the unvaccinated. Universities are barely waiting for the tuition checks to clear before imposing vaccination mandates. Hospitals, health care facilities, on down to rehabilitation facilities, are denying critical care services to the unvaccinated, who are also finding themselves in some places at risk of losing access to government services. Governments, schools, hospitals, and some businesses — egged on by politicians, public health popinjays, and media — are threatening the very jobs of the unvaccinated (with those deadlines looming, September could be a bad month for job losses). Even some retailers, restaurants, entertainment venues, and others are denying their services to the unvaccinated.

Again and again, these tyrannical edicts make no allowances for people with natural immunity. Should the people behind them get credit for caring, for trying to further public health? Their defense, after all, is that they’re trying to pressure people to do what’s good for them; e.g., the White House considers vaccine mandates “the right lever at the right time.” How much goodwill shall we ascribe to them amid such pointless, callous behavior? The person turned away at the schoolhouse door, the person denied critical medical care, the person not allowed in your restaurant, the person is forbidden from fleeing to a freer state — that person without a vaccination card could very well carry a stronger immune response against the virus than the card-carrying elite allowed to participate in your Unbrave New World.

Oh, but the response is, unlike with the vaccinated, it’s hard to know who has recovered from previous infection. Right, and that fact undercuts the case for “vaccine passports” as well. Let me explain how.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that only 1 out of every 4.2 actual infections of Covid-19 are reported in the U.S. This estimate makes sense if you consider, for example, one member of a family of four tests positive but the rest in the house feel sick, or also so many mild or asymptomatic infections that wouldn’t prompt a doctor’s visit (those are, incidentally, signs of “a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response,” per Le Bert et al., Journal of Experimental Medicine, March 1, 2021).

As of this writing, there have been nearly 39,280,000 cases (i.e., reported infections) and nearly 639,000 deaths. Multiply the case count by 4.2 and then subtract out deaths, and that implies there are about 164.3 million people with robust natural immunity. That is nearly half of the population in the U.S. already (332.7 million per U.S. Census Bureau estimates as of this writing).

Without accounting for vaccination, then, roughly half of the U.S. population already has an immunity to Covid-19 that is stronger, more durable, and broader than anything from a vaccine. Only about one-fourth of them, however, would be able to “prove” it with documentation of a reported case.

So yes, it’s “hard to know” who’s already got natural immunity. That uncertainty, however, targets half the country when it comes to denying them common human decency and the mundane privileges of traveling, attending university, receiving medical care, receiving government services, dining out, or even buying groceries.

Such acts are made with the presumption that there is no good reason not to get a vaccine. To be sure, there are several good reasons to choose vaccination, especially if you are among those in vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with chronic disease. But as Zywicki showed, there are also good, compelling reasons that someone might decide against vaccination.

As Kulldorff and Bhattacharya wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 6,

The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those whoʼve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children—for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway—are at far less risk of death than from the flu. If authorities mandate vaccination of those who donʼt need it, the public will start questioning vaccines in general…

Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory. Most of those endorsing the idea belongs to the laptop class—privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they donʼt need. Passports would entice young, low-risk professionals, in the West and the developing world, to get the vaccine before older, higher-risk but less affluent members of society. Many unnecessary deaths would result.

The right response in these uncertain times is — as always — the response that protects people’s liberty and respects their autonomy. Fight “vaccination passports” and similar mandates forbidding people from enjoying all the privileges they enjoyed as a matter of course prior to March 2020. Resist the urge to burden your employees, students, patients, and patrons. Even taken on their own merits, these prohibitions amount to nothing more than a coin flip against each and every person turned away. Considered in full, they are cruel, discriminatory, and ultimately self-defeating.

*****

This article was published on September 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from AIER, American Institute for Economic Research.

House Republicans Probe EPA Official’s Ties to Chinese-Controlled University

Republican members of a key House committee are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency provide records related to a political appointee’s continued ties with a university controlled by the Chinese government.

Christopher Frey, the deputy assistant administrator of EPA for science policy who was appointed in early February by President Joe Biden, disclosed in his ethics recusal statement that he had taken an unpaid leave of absence from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, The Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported.

The ex officio chancellor of the university, Carrie Lam, is Beijing’s handpicked bureaucrat to serve as the chief executive of Hong Kong.

The watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust, which first obtained Frey’s recusal statement, said the university is effectively an arm of the Chinese government and that “one can presume from the leave that [Frey] plans to return to his employment with the Chinese government upon completing his tenure at EPA.”

Frey’s continued professional ties with the university raise concern about his ability to fulfill the duties of his office, Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., ranking member of the environment subcommittee of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, wrote in a letter Tuesday to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

Frey’s office is tasked with conducting research that serves as the basis for EPA decision-making related to safeguarding human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.

Norman writes:

Instead of resigning his position with [the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology], he is only taking a leave of absence, indicating Dr. Frey intends to return to work for [the university] after his service in the Biden administration. At a time when the Biden administration is pushing for costly climate change ‘solutions’ that benefit China, it raises questions about why a senior EPA official has such strong ties to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Norman’s letter demands that the EPA provide documents to his committee related to Frey’s affiliation with the university and any communications he has had since his appointment with anyone affiliated with it.

The EPA stood by its decision to allow Frey to retain his relationship with the school.

“Consistent with White House policy over several administrations, political appointees (with the exception of Senate-confirmed appointees) are permitted to take a leave of absence from an academic institution during their government tenure, provided that the required recusals are in place to avoid a potential or actual conflict of interest,” EPA spokesman Timothy Carroll previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Dr. Frey has executed the appropriate recusal statement and will continue to follow the guidance of ethics officials.”

Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, applauded the Republican lawmakers for investigating Frey’s ties to China.

“As the members mention, not only is China the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but dissent and academic freedom are under increasing attack at the very institution with which Frey is affiliated,” Chamberlain said. “In the midst of questions swirling over the Biden family’s financial relationship with China, the EPA’s nonchalant defense of Frey’s ongoing relationship should raise serious red flags in the eyes of the American public.”

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

*****

This article was published on September 7, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

Arizona Officials React to Biden Vaccination Announcement

President Joe Biden’s Thursday announcement of broad new COVID-19 vaccination requirements has some Arizona officials cheering and others settling in for a fight.

Biden announced a vaccination requirement for employees of any business with more than 100 people, something that’s estimated to be a vaccine requirement for 100 million people. Another estimated 80 million workers who refuse would be subjected to regular testing.

“While America is in much better shape than it was seven months ago when I took office, I need to tell you a second fact, we’re in a tough stretch and it could last a while,” Biden said in a speech Thursday afternoon.

Fines for a violation would reportedly be $14,000 per instance.

In addition, Biden announced he would require any federal employee under the executive branch’s umbrella to be required to be inoculated. The same goes for employees of any company that accepts federal contracts.

This marks Biden’s latest attempt at a governmental response to rising infections nationwide largely due to the delta variant of the COVID-19 virus. Even though more than 200 million Americans have received at least one dose of the vaccine, nearly 80 million of those eligible have abstained.

Gov. Doug Ducey responded to the new rule Thursday, promising to fight Biden’s “dictatorial approach” to governing.

“Joe Biden has failed us on COVID. He ran for office on a promise to ‘shut down the virus.’ He has failed on this, much as he has failed on the border crisis and in Afghanistan. So now, President Biden’s plan is to shut down freedom,” Ducey said in a statement. “These mandates are outrageous. They will never stand up in court. We must and will push back.”

Arizona’s two U.S. Senators were largely quiet on the announcement. Neither office was immediately available to respond to a request for comment, but Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, tweeted, “Arizona – if you haven’t already, today is a great day to get vaccinated.”

Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego applauded the move.

“This is the critical action we need to appropriately fight this virus,” she said Thursday afternoon. “It’s great to see strong leadership at a time when others have prioritized politics over science. Safety for every resident has & remains my top priority – this requirement will allow us to protect & save lives.”

Like others, Attorney General Mark Brnovich questioned the legality of the order.

President Biden is now taking federal overreach to unheard-of levels by dictating vaccine mandates for all private companies with over 100 people, federal contractors, and healthcare providers receiving federal dollars,” the Republican tweeted. “I am reviewing his outrageous actions and will take all legal recourse to defend our state’s sovereignty and the rights of Arizonans to make the best healthcare decisions for themselves.”

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, a conservative Republican from Gilbert, called Biden’s requirements an assault on individuals’ freedoms and livelihoods.

“We must fight this,” he said Thursday.

*****

This article was published on September 9, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The CenterSquare.

GUN CONTROL ISN’T WORKING …and maybe it never did

The newest estimates of guns in American’s hands are now at 390 million, larger than our population. Not the adult population—the entire population. If you’re like me, you see this as a good thing, because guns are a good thing. They represent freedom, independence, safety, more things than I plan to list in this short space. A person who asks why you need a gun, or why you need so many, is so far behind the eight ball where do you begin? Why do you need so many shoes? In a free country like America, who tells you how many shoes you’re “allowed” to have? That goes double for constitutionally protected property.

The fact that this nation is now seeing more vicious immoral street crime than we had in the days of Eliot Ness and the Untouchables, the 1920s during alcohol prohibition, puts the lie to so-called “gun control.” We had no such thing back then. There were absolutely no federal “gun-control” laws until 1934, if you overlook a few minor hunting regulations in National Parks (the first was 16 USC §26 in Yellowstone). We had no background checks, or paperwork, registration of any kind, or age limits. People simply went into stores, like the Five & Dime (also known as Woolworth’s), or local hardware shops, and bought whatever they wanted. Including machine guns.

Today as you’ve read a million times, we’re drowning in laws enacted at the federal, state, and local level to control guns. A fat lot of good that has done! Every criminal of every description has managed to get everything on their Christmas wish list. But—they can’t have any of it—legally. Under so-called “gun control,” criminals can’t even touch or buy or get any kind of gun or ammunition, but as you can see, it hasn’t stopped them. Gun control has failed. It doesn’t work. It is a 100% failure. Murderers laugh at gun control.

What works is law enforcement. Everyone knows this, including the Democrat’s party, who want to gut it. If that isn’t insane, the word insane needs to be redefined. Democrats want to defund police at a time when the failure of gun control is so painfully obvious mass media has almost nothing else on its A-list, night after night. The illogic of banning guns, which the Left is pushing fast and furious, is coupled with an effort to disarm and disembowel police forces. They are having luck with that too. Police are quitting and departments have essentially been neutered nationwide. You folks in Dillon’s audience who wear the blue know of what I speak.

No, what needs a new definition is so-called “gun control.” This duplicitous relatively new scheme (not many decades old) is a method for controlling the public, and increasing government power. It has nothing to do with stopping crime. Here’s a basic truth, remember this: Gun control is not crime control. We have tons of the former, way too little of the latter.

Gun control is now uncontrol.

So why are criminals and malfeasants using their guns with such wild abandon, and such frequency? Without any semblance of stealth, or concern for innocents around them—even their own neighbors and children—they set day and night alight with gunfire. Wasn’t murder a clandestine thing? Has “gun control” become uncontrol? Although the media would have you believe crime is rampant, that’s a Big Lie if ever there was one. Criminal shootings aren’t happening in American cities, or even Democrat-controlled cities, as the Right likes to frame it. It is happening in certain limited, select urban neighborhoods. The demographics are publicly available if you care to check (but not made clear by cable or broadcast “news” outlets). This isn’t a suburban problem. It isn’t a rural issue.

No, what’s missing is that much-maligned, flatly rejected, looked-down-upon and denigrated old American sense of morality, and ethics, and sense of family values, and yes, even religion, and The American Way.

These have been so stripped out of our lives and our culture that even Olympic athletes don’t honor the nation that got them to the podium when they manage to get there. With such abysmal self-esteem, such a vacuum for recognizing what has value, and such constant drubbing from so-called “entertainment” on mass media, it’s no wonder that some people crammed into inner cities just parade around shooting each other and anyone else in range.

So-called “gun control” isn’t working, and doesn’t work. For you though, gun control is practicing, with new and better gear, so you’re a better shot, if God-forbid, you ever need it in a desperate situation. You have the Second Amendment to protect your right to do that. Every effort to deny that to you, that’s the crime.

Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, ten of them on gun law, and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. See his work or reach him at GunLaws.com.

*****

This article was published in the September-October edition of the Blue Press, the commercial catalog for Dillon Precision, the national leader in the manufacture of reloading equipment based in Scottsdale, Arizona.  It is reprinted with permission from the author.

World’s Dirtiest Cities List Raises Issue: Why Don’t Politicians Call Out China?

Editors’ Note: We remain skeptical that so-called greenhouse gases are causing the earth’s temperature to rise. Even if so, there are cheaper, less intrusive ways of dealing with the issues emanating from minor changes in temperature than the arrogant schemes of central planners, who can’t even govern our major cities, but yet insist they are qualified to change the entire climate of the earth. That said, the following article makes a trenchant point. Accepting the greenhouse hypothesis for the sake of argument, the US is doing well in reducing emissions and the real offender is China. Yet environmental groups and Democrat politicians give the Chinese a pass on the whole issue and demand more and more extreme measures be placed on us when all that means little if China continues to emit and pollute.

 

Ponder this: A new tally of global cities’ emissions finds that the top 25 are responsible for 52% of the planet’s urban greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-three of those are in China.

New York City is the first American city to appear, at No. 26. Out of the top 75, just four other American cities are listed – San Diego, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles – all of them ranked 41 or higher. In other words, the U.S. – including each of our major cities – is outperforming the world when it comes to emissions.

All this data begs a question of our elected leaders who say we have to do more for our environment, banking on the fact that many Americans hear “environment” and think only locally, as in their state or nation. The fact is that the environment – including carbon emission – is global, so what we do here matters but what happens globally matters as much, if not more.

Unless we can use our U.S. innovation and leadership to spur other nations to make meaningful progress, then global environmental improvement will not happen. This is an indisputable fact.

What we in the U.S. have been doing for the global environment is working, but trying to do more without the help of other nations will only hurt our economy and make life harder for families and small businesses – especially those in inner cities, on fixed incomes or at or below the poverty level. Many have heard about environmental justice; well, energy justice is real and it has far-reaching consequences.

Without a doubt, the U.S. must maintain its progress, which includes reducing emissions by more than any other nation for the last two decades – even as our record energy output made the U.S. the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas.

There are those who argue, as they always do, that “we must do more” to show American environmental leadership to the rest of the world. For one, we could start by touting our current successes, and not self-flagellate to please a narrow world-view that starts with blaming America and relies heavily on socialist principles.

We are already leading the world in terms of environmental regulations and controls, and again, we’ve – by far – reduced our emissions more than any country year after year for more than 20 years. By 2025, we will be more than two-thirds of the way to reaching our targeted emissions reduction of 28% from 2005 levels under the Paris Climate Agreement, according to Bloomberg Philanthropies. Part of that is owing to the good work we’ve done in our cities to reduce emissions.

Contrast this with the facts about China, which recently won plaudits from many in the “we must do more” crowd for promising to stop increasing emissions before 2030. While we’re cutting our emissions, China’s pollution by then will have surged an estimated 14%-25%. On top of that, China’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 exceeded those of the entire developed world.

Say that again: more than the entire developed world.

Those are facts, undisputed by even the most hardcore anti-business zealot masquerading as an environmentalist.

When facts don’t add up, you can count on activists and allied political figures to turn to fear as a sales tactic. Just look at the about-face on natural gas. After talking up natural gas as a “bridge fuel,” the big-money environmental lobby turned on it and, struggling to find a plausible reason for the 180-degree turn, warned of calamity over methane. The obvious solution, they posited in a fact-free manner, was stopping natural gas production and transportation.

Natural gas is in large part responsible for our emissions reductions, as is our more recent and growing wind and solar power deployment. All of this ought to be applauded, not derided. It’s all good for our families, small businesses and farmers, and our economy. Energy is fundamental to a modern life, and it is essential to a healthy economy and population.

Yet the “we must do more” gang is silent on China’s rapidly increasing emissions. This comes while the U.S. continues to rapidly reduce our emission – including carbon, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and many, many more.

However, the U.S. anti-energy activists are not so silent when it comes to asking the American government to go easy on China.

More than 50 environmental groups recently sent a letter urging President Biden to be less aggressive toward Beijing, because it could risk Chinese cooperation. The groups, with no apparent sense of irony, wrote that doing so would build a “global economy that works for everyday working people.”

We applaud their notion of supporting working people. But attempting to force the United States to curtail its affordable and reliable sources of energy is not supporting working people. It is harming them and taking away energy that ought to be the right of every American and indeed, everyone in the world.

If we want a forecast of the future as advocated for by activists, let’s look at our recent history. Barely eight months since a new presidential administration took over, we have seen what constraining American energy production does, through a moratorium on federal energy leases and the shutdown of the Keystone XL pipeline. Just look at the higher gas prices, lost jobs, proposed tax increases, and rising inflation and try not to have a flashback to the 1970s.

American families, farmers, and small businesses all benefit from safe, abundant, affordable, reliable and environmentally responsible energy. Without energy, we face job losses, economic opportunities and, in some cases, the loss of life when energy is needed but not there.

Government policies ought to start with the principle of delivering energy reliably and affordably to homes and businesses. The policies advanced by elected leaders who are expecting Americans to get used to going without energy – think planned blackouts due to inadequate energy supply – or to pay more for it when they need it most are wrong.

When political leaders tell us we must ban certain energy sources to meet our emissions reduction goals, we should ask them why. Ask them about what they are doing about other countries, before they ask us to send our electrical grid backwards to the reliability and affordability levels experienced in the developing world.

Americans should demand reliable, affordable and environmentally superior energy. We must accept nothing less, and tell our leaders we are watching what is happening in the rest of the world.

We cannot meet our global environmental goals unless others follow America’s lead, not the other way around.

*****

This article was published on September 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Woke Companies Must Wakeup On ESG

Growing numbers of companies, banks, universities and investment houses are adopting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards and disclosure rules. They’re pressured to do so by activists, legislators and regulators. Many expect to get rich via taxpayer-subsidized “renewable” energy projects.

Nearly all hope to “greenwash” their reputations, by claiming they’ll “make the world a better place,” by reducing fossil fuel emissions, and thus planetary temperatures and extreme weather events.

They recently got a boost from the US House of Representatives. It voted 215-214 party-line to pass a bill supporting Securities and Exchange Commission plans to impose new ESG rules requiring publicly traded companies to disclose “climate risks” allegedly caused by oil, gas and coal production and use. Some think the SEC might now give greater scrutiny to ESG climate claims and misconduct, but that seems unlikely.

Regardless, woke organizations need to wake up to climate, renewable energy and ESG realities.

The ever-more-hysterical climate and weather claims have been roundly debunked by Dr. Roy Spencer, Gregory Wrightstone, Marc Morano, Steven Koonin and others. But what’s truly outrageous about ESG is the way it studiously ignores the massive, widespread damage inflicted by pseudo-renewable energy.

Wind and sunlight certainly are clean, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing their highly dispersed, unpredictable, weather-dependent energy to meet humanity’s huge and growing energy needs absolutely is not. That requires lands and raw materials that are anything but renewable – using fuels and processes that are absolutely not clean, green, ecological or sustainable. Because they fail to recognize this, ESG programs are dishonest, even fraudulent – and must be reformed, investigated or scrapped.

Wind, solar and battery land and raw material requirements are astronomical. Onshore wind turbines require nine times more metals and minerals per megawatt than a modern combined-cycle gas power plant. One onshore 3-MW turbine foundation needs 600 cubic yards (1,500 tons) of concrete, plus rebar.

Offshore wind requires 14 times more materials per MW. Just the 2,100 850-foot-tall offshore turbines (30,000 megawatts) that President Biden wants to install by 2030 would require 110,000 tons of copper, plus millions of tons of steel, aluminum, fiberglass, cobalt, rare earth metals and other materials.

At an average of 0.44% copper in ore deposits worldwide, the copper alone would require mining and processing 25 million tons of ore, after removing 40 million tons of overburden to reach the ore bodies!

Add in materials for solar panels, more onshore and offshore wind turbines, backup battery systems, electric vehicles, transmission lines, and all-electric home heating and cooking systems – to run the entire USA, Europe and world – and the “green energy transformation” would require hundreds of billions of tons of metals, minerals and plastics, trillions of tons of ores, trillions of tons of overburden, and thousands of mines, processing plants and factories. Nearly all these operations employ fossil fuels.

America’s laws and attitudes make mining in the United States nearly impossible, even to support ESG-certified “green” energy facilities. That means most mining and processing will be done in Africa, Asia and Latin America, increasingly by Chinese companies. The manufacturing is done increasingly in China, which is why that country is building more coal-fired power plants every month.

Pseudo-clean-energy activities utilize hazardous chemicals and release toxic pollutants. They require vast volumes of water, often in the world’s most water-deprived regions. They cause acid mine drainage, create mountains of waste rock, and often result in vast “lakes” of toxic chemicals from refining the ores. Most are conducted under almost nonexistent pollution control, mined-land reclamation, endangered species, workplace safety, child and slave labor, and fair wage rules.

Cobalt mining already involves 40,000 African children, as young as four! Many Chinese solar panels are made with Uighur forced labor. ESG “green” aspirations would multiply this slavery many times over.

These travesties occur overseas – out of sight and out of mind – letting ESG activists and profiteers make incessant false claims that fossil fuel replacement energy is clean and virtuous. But when wind, solar and battery facilities are installed, adverse consequences will reverberate across the United States.

Hundreds of millions of acres of scenic, wildlife habitat and coastal areas would be impacted; millions of birds, bats, tortoises and other wildlife displaced, maimed and killed. And when their short productive lives are finished, billions of turbine blades, solar panels and batteries will be sent to gigantic landfills, because they cannot be recycled; their toxic metals and chemicals could leach out into soils, streams and groundwater. The same will happen in Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere.

Even on windy days, Mr. Biden’s 2,100 monstrous offshore turbines won’t meet New York State peak summertime electricity needs. Meeting just US coastal city needs would require tens of thousands of turbines. Dredge-and-fill operations associated with installing them would smother mollusks and other benthic species. Vibration noises would harm whale and porpoise navigation and communication. Their mere presence would create major safety issues for aircraft and fishing, naval and commercial vessels.

A single industrial solar facility near Fredericksburg, Virginia required clearcutting thousands of acres of forest habitat. Dominion Energy is planning solar facilities on Virginia acreage totaling one-fourth of Delaware. Solar installations proposed for the American Southwest would blanket millions of acres of desert habitats. Wind and solar operations would threaten or eradicate dozens of bird and other species that environmentalists have utilized for decades to stop drilling, fracking and pipeline projects.

Connecting far-flung wind, solar and battery installations to industrial centers and urban areas would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines – and still more steel, copper and concrete. Battery fires have already destroyed electric vehicles and homes. Imagine huge warehouses filled with thousands of battery modules erupting into enormous, uncontrollable conflagrations.

Biodiesel projects have already destroyed important orangutan habitats, and thousands of acres of US hardwood forest habitats have been turned into wood pellets for Britain’s Drax Power Plant.

Threatened, endangered, migratory and marine species must be protected – wherever mining, processing and manufacturing take place, and wherever “renewable” energy installations are contemplated. Human health impacts from infrasound and light flicker must guide decisions on how close to homes and businesses wind turbines may be installed.

Reformed ESG rules – call them Environment and Human Rights (EHR) principles – must require that all these issues are addressed for every wind, solar, battery, transmission and biofuel proposal.

People must know in advance how many turbines, panels, batteries and power lines are contemplated; how many tons of metals, minerals, concrete and plastics they will require; where those materials will come from; under what environmental, pollution, safety, wage and child labor standards. Companies and government agencies must certify that supply chains are free from child or slave labor.

Project-specific, comprehensive and cumulative US and global environmental studies must be conducted before any projects are approved, and must include regular, independent reviews of bird, bat, reptile, whale, porpoise and other wildlife displacements, injuries and deaths. Project studies must fully assess all environmental, human health, human rights and other impacts worldwide, and must not be fast-tracked.

These reality-based EHR principles will help ensure that any “green future” is founded on ethical standards that address all human and ecological consequences, and actually do make the world a better place. They can also help guide SEC investigations and prosecutions for ESG misconduct and fraud – and help spur much-needed mining in the United States, to reduce our reliance on China, Russia, Taliban Afghanistan and other adversarial countries for critical and strategic minerals.

*****

This article was published on September 6, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Arizona Elementary School District Hit by Same Covid Vaccine Madness Afflicting the NFL

Keeping kids safe is the number-one priority for any elementary school in America, right? But then there is the Cartwright School District in Phoenix, where selectively enforcing a Covid vaccination policy tops taking care of the kids.

How do we know this? Consider the case of one William Bishop, the now-former director for buildings and operations, who was recently demoted to substitute teacher by Cartwright Superintendent Dr. Lee-Ann Aguilar-Lawlor.

Why was Bishop demoted? Because his faith precludes his submitting to the Covid vaccination shot. The demotion came after he requested a religious accommodation, a request to which school officials never responded, except to bust him way down the pay chart.

Bishop is represented by the First Liberty Institute, the Plano, Texas-based public interest law firm that specializes in First Amendment litigation, especially when issues of religious freedom are involved.

Cartwright’s conduct is shot through with disrespect for constitutional liberties, to say nothing of common sense. Consider the description cited by First Liberty Counsel Rebecca Dummermuth in a September 9 letter to Aguilar-Lawlor:

“Cartwright’s actions are particularly indefensible because: (1) it already granted at least one nonreligious exemption from the mandate; (2) its demotion of Mr. Bishop will bring him into far more contact with students and other staff, thus contradicting the district’s presumed rationale for refusing to grant his accommodation request; (3) it chose not to impose its mandate on teachers, those most in contact with students and staff; (4) 21 percent of district employees remain unvaccinated; and (5) Mr. Bishop has natural immunity and his doctor advises against receiving the vaccine.

“These circumstances leave Cartwright with no tenable argument that a religious accommodation would impose undue hardship on it or that it has a compelling interest in imposing its mandate on Mr. Bishop but not many other employees (including those whose duties involve far more contact with students and staff).

“Therefore, the district is plainly in violation of the laws set forth above. To be clear, Mr. Bishop has no objection to a reasonable accommodation that could serve the District’s presumed health concerns. But he cannot accept the unlawful, second-class treatment to which the district has subjected him.”

Bishop’s objections are deeply rooted in his Christian faith, according to Dummermuth, who told Aquilar-Lawlor in the letter that:

“Mr. Bishop’s sincerely held religious beliefs prevent him from complying with the mandate to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. As a Christian, he believes that his body is a temple of God (I Corinthians. 3:16-17, 6:19), and therefore he has a God-given responsibility to protect the physical integrity of his body and not to defile it (I Corinthians. 8:7; II Corinthians. 7:1).

“Additionally, he believes that human life begins at conception, and he staunchly opposes abortion. Therefore, receiving a vaccine that has been developed using aborted fetal cell lines would violate his conscience.”

The district continues to pay Bishop his old salary, but the contract that specified the amount expires in the near future. Replacing it with a new contract based on a substitute teacher’s compensation will represent a 50 percent pay cut for Bishop.

*****

Continue reading this article, published September 10, 2021 at  PJ Media.

 

The Experience of a Lifetime, a 9/11 Remembrance

This is a reprint of a column published in the Los Angeles Daily News about our experience from twenty years ago on 9/11 and thereafter. It is being re-run with the hope that you will recall what your own experience was that day while contemplating the importance of our goal to win the war against the terrorists.

 

I knew this was going to happen. I had been told and warned it was only a matter of time. I never expected to be part of history in this manner. I certainly did not know it was going to occur on this day, at this time.

I came to Washington with a group of Los Angelenos as part of a tour tied to the national quarterly meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. We had arrived on Saturday, September 8th, and began what most political junkies would perceive as a dream five days. We had lined up members of the cabinet, the Chief Justice, and others. We had political leaders and policy wonks scheduled higher than the corn in Kansas.

As fate would have it, Monday, the 10th, was our foreign policy day. We started with a briefing by the Israeli Ambassador and his staff and followed that with a briefing from the #2 person at the Jordanian Embassy. We went next to lunch. At the time, I characterized this meeting as one of the high points of the trip.

At lunch we had both Frank Gaffney and Steven Emerson speak to us. Mr. Gaffney is a top expert on missile defense and Mr. Emerson is the preeminent expert on Islamic Terrorism. Anyone would have walked out of the room trembling after hearing their insights. These are the same messages that they have been delivering for years. None of us had the premonition of what was soon to happen.

We went from lunch to a tour of the Pentagon. We entered the building in the area that would soon be destroyed. A tour guide from the army met us; a nice young man hoping to be made a sergeant soon. He was proud of how he had mastered walking backwards and talking to groups. We don’t know whether he is with us today.

Torie Clarke, from the public affairs division, briefed us followed by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld’s chief deputy. We left with a much greater understanding of the world facing us. We exited the Pentagon with no thought that in 17 fateful hours the area we were leaving would be a fiery deathtrap.

We capped this wonderfully, enlightening day with a private meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft. The meeting was held in the office of the Solicitor General, Ted Olson. The same man whose wife would call him from the plane that attacked the Pentagon.

By the end of the day, we were worn, but exhilarated.

The next day, Tuesday, we loaded our bus to go to the Capitol. Our plan was a guided tour of the Capitol by a couple of friendly Congressmen, followed by lunch at the Capitol with visits from Senators and other Congressmen. This was to be capped with the highlight of our trip, a guided tour of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

We were nearly giddy with anticipation as we were dropped off. On our left was our afternoon destination, the Supreme Court building. On our right was the seat of the free world, the Capitol building. It was just as magnificent as I left it on Inauguration Day.

As we passed through security to begin our tour, a cell phone rang. One of the members of our tour was being notified that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. We proceeded to a small star-like emblem on the floor of the Capitol under the dome. It is recognized as the center point of Washington DC. It was a fateful place to be when you become aware of the most infamous day in American history.

We noted a quickened pace in the steps of the staffers passing us. Some began to move in a trot or near running pass. My wife, showing worry, questioned the guide as to whether this behavior was unusual. The guide, a long-time Capitol staffer, stated in a calming way, “No.” It was only appropriate to say that at this point that all hell broke loose.

A lady officer started running at me screaming “Get out of here.” It is an image burned into my mind forever. As leader of the group, I turned just like a father would to start to get our group out of the building. Before I could take a full step, the same officer yelled, “started running NOW!”

I quickly turned back the other way and made the 75 feet to the door out in a mere moment. I ran down the Capitol steps and kept running until I was out of the line of the building where I turned to start gathering the troops.

That was the instance in time when the severity of what we faced began to become reality. Off behind the Capitol, beyond its flag, we saw a plume of smoke rising from the plane crash into the Pentagon.

We gathered our group and moved them out toward the sidewalk. We faced our now cancelled destination, the Supreme Court building. Guards ringed the steps of the Supreme Court with an ominous officer standing at the pinnacle of the facing.

Gathering our group in a shady place on the grounds of the Capitol we began to assess our situation. The magnitude of what was happening began to come into focus. We now knew both World Trade Center Towers had been hit in addition to the Pentagon. Our staff people were anxiously trying to contact our bus driver with no luck as everyone on the street was attempting to use their cell phones.

We huddled our group to inform them of the facts we had in hand and what we were planning from this point. As I began to explain our challenges ahead, I broke down momentarily. Tears started flowing, as I could not speak of the horrible loss of life, I knew we were facing and the huge challenge to our way of life.

This was the moment that I realized that these sick, demented people had achieved their goal. They wanted to disrupt our way of life and they had. I had a premonition of what was to come.

Our group in synchronized steps moved down the street trying to connect with our bus driver. The streets began to fill with traffic as policemen began to redirect vehicles. It was quite amazing how quickly the entire security plan fell into place. It gave everyone on the streets a sense on calm. Though no one knew if they were safe, they felt safe. People walked in a calm manner and no driver pulled any stunts like driving on the sidewalk.

Our acutely aware bus driver circled around and loaded us up for the trip to safety. Two things became our obstacles; gridlock traffic and news that our hotel had been evacuated. Our staff and I put a plan together to exit the city and head toward Rockville, Maryland. We soon decided on an appropriate place to let for a group of Jews in crisis; Bagel City.

At this point we began to settle into the new challenges that faced us. It had become abundantly clear that our program for the next two days was canceled. We had to figure out what to do with our crew until our planned departure on Thursday morning. We were not even certain we would be able to depart then. After having lunch and calming the nerves of the queasy we reloaded onto the bus knowing that at least we could now enter our hotel and begin to reorient.

At 3:00 P.M. we arrived back at our hotel and disbursed to our rooms with strict orders from me not to go anywhere without clearance. I think everyone was too exhausted at this point to do anything but go and lie down.

It was at this time that we saw the first visuals of the devastation. We had been keeping abreast of events via radio, but we have become a visual society. We had our first taste of the magnitude of destruction in New York and the gapping hole in the Pentagon. There was Torie Clarke, the woman who had briefed us the day before, now briefing the press on the destruction.

Over the next day and a half, we planned and organized. We held everyone together for meals and tried to figure out how we were getting home. We had dinner on Tuesday night with two members of the Republican Jewish Coalition who were at the State Department in training to be Ambassadors to Italy and the Netherlands. We all shared our stories.

By Wednesday it became clear we were not getting out by plane on our regularly scheduled flight from Dulles Airport. We were able to transfer our reservations to Friday and had reached a comfort level that by that time the air system would be back in operation.

We went to dinner on Wednesday night hoping we had resolved our transportation problem and enjoyed what turned out to be our last meal together for awhile.

I awoke early Thursday morning to read in the Washington newpapers very tentative comments by Transportation Secretary Mineta about continuation of normal flights. The banners running along the news channel gave me no greater level of confidence. I decided that it was imperative that we get home to see our 12-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter. Also, no disrespect to the Jewish Community of Washington, but I wanted to have my fanny in a seat at my Temple in Los Angeles for Rosh Hashanah on Monday night.

I called Avis requesting a vehicle. They told me they had a full-size car available at Dulles Airport and we could take it to Los Angeles for some ridiculously low cost of $250 or so. There was no relocation charge and unlimited miles. I booked the car. I then sat back overwhelmed by the humanity of the company. They knew they were going to lose money on this trip as we put 2,700 miles on the car. They just figured they had become a main form of transportation for Americans, and they were going to do their part and relocate all the cars later. I don’t know if the other rental car companies did the same, but this action gave me a greater appreciation for the humanity of our business leaders.

The flurry of action that ensued was blazing. While my wife packed, I contacted remaining members of our group informing them of our plans and making sure they were covered in their plans. Another couple called us back and said they wanted to join us. They too had small children, a seven-year-old and a three-year-old. I called them back and told them they could join us under the following conditions: we were driving straight through with no stops unless our assistant in Los Angeles could arrange us an air flight from a city along the way. The wife said they accepted those conditions and we hung up. She later told me she turned to her husband and asked if he thought I was going to allow bathroom breaks.

We had breakfast and started our exit from the city. While my wife got our luggage down into a cab, I ran around the corner to pick up two essential items – a road atlas and a car cell phone charger. We knew they would now be our lifelines and we could not afford to run out of juice.

By 10:30 A.M. on Thursday we began our journey home. Four people in a Buick LeSabre who knew each other, but not well. Four people who had committed to spend time together in a compact space, but with a common goal – to get back to Los Angeles and to be safe at home.

We started driving on Route 40, the Southern Route. It parallels the old Route 66, which we are all familiar with from the now-famous song. We created a fast appreciation for the national highway system developed under another great American, President Dwight Eisenhower. Our choice to do the southern route became a fateful and fruitful decision.

Our path would take us across eight states, which we completed in 48 hours, including a sleep break in Kingman, Arizona. We went through Virginia, home of many of our forefathers. Having never been in Southern Virginia, I had not realized how lush and green the rolling hills were at this time of year.

By mid-afternoon we entered Tennessee. It now became abundantly clear that driving across America was the right way to get home and end this fateful trip. Seeing flags waving off of buildings and homes, people standing on bridges waving flags made it certain that we needed this experience to complete our sojourn.

We drove through Knoxville and passed by Carthage, the home of our former political
adversary, Al Gore. We also passed by the home of Andy Jackson and thought about how we could use his leadership now. We forged on to Nashville, one of the centers of American life today.

By this time, we were using our cell phones at a furious pace. We had dozens of people following our trek. We spoke with one friend and told her we needed to find the best barbecue in Nashville. If we were going to suffer, we were going to suffer in style. She found Jack’s Bar-b-que on Broadway in the heart of Nashville. We landed there at about 8:00 P.M.

After a sumptuous meal of ribs, beans and potato salad, I went over to thank the manager, Tonia Saxon, a woman in her mid-20’s, who was doing what everyone had been doing the last couple of days, watching the news updates on TV. We engaged in a conversation about our new realities. She informed me her younger brother was in the Marines. I said that he might die because of what we faced. As we both began to tear up, she told me she had just spoken to him.

Her brother said to her “When I joined the Marines, I knew this could happen. I know what is facing me. If I die, I know I will have died for my country.” She told me she said to him “Brother, I was proud of you when you became a corporal, I was even more proud when you became a sergeant and I have never been prouder of you because you have now become a man.”

As we left Jack’s we started to walk down Broadway. We stood there listening to three Nashville Cats wailin’ out a country and western standard in the bar next store.
I began to think of why these people would want to destroy us. After all, nothing has really changed in America since the 1920’s when President Calvin Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.”

All Americans want to do is make some dough, raise their kids, go to church, see a play, watch a baseball game, play bingo on Tuesday night or go to a honky tonk bar. Why don’t they just leave us alone?

But through the sadness, this may be good for America. We have been bickering for the last 35 years, quite often over minutiae. We argue overspending a surplus and whose surplus it is, chads, sexual peccadilloes and such. But for now, the arguing is over. We look at each other differently. We will not soon be hearing about Asian Americans, African Americans or Hispanic Americans. We are once again just Americans.

Back in the car we headed toward Memphis, the home of the King. I thought our enemies must really hate him. I wished he was around to shake his hips in the ultimate act of defiance against these culture madmen. We passed through Memphis and then crossed one of the symbols of American greatness, the Mississippi.

We continued on through the night driving across Arkansas because we had a new destination. We had figured out that we were heading straight for Oklahoma City. The President had named Friday a day of remembrance. What more appropriate place to be at daybreak than at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, formerly the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

We arrived at the memorial at 7:30 A.M. having now completed one-half of our journey home. We went directly to the site. It was listed in their now-outdated brochure as the site of the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history.

It was truly an emotionally overwhelming experience particularly in light of the events of the past Tuesday. They had chairs for each one of the dead, smaller ones for the children. There were mementos hung on the wall. The national park service had truly done a classy job.

An old boy in a cowboy hat walked over to us and handed us brochures about the park. We chatted a little and then he pointed over our shoulders. He said “See that lady over there? Her daughter died in the blast.” We walked over to Doris Jones, a slight woman all of 5’ 3”. I stood there and hugged her and managed to get out “I’m Sorry” through the tears.

We continued on to a local Westin hotel where the staff could not have been nicer. We met a gentleman from Sherman Oaks, California who was doing the same thing we were doing, driving back to Los Angeles. We cleaned up and hopped in the car for the second half of our tour of America.

We had a new purpose. Three members of our group had left on a train the day before and we had a new mission – to beat them home. As it turns out our group ended up getting home in all fashions — trains, planes and automobiles. One couple even came home by truck as their son, a trucker, picked them up and brought them back home.

We headed off leaving Oklahoma and entering Texas. We stopped in Amarillo for a short lunch of Tex-Mex and were greeted by streets with homes all with American Flags in front. It really made you think about why these schmucks thought that they were going to divide us. It was apparent we were never as united as Americans in my lifetime.

We launched on through Texas and into New Mexico. New Mexico is overwhelmingly beautiful. Just as Virginia and Tennessee are gorgeous in their way, so is New Mexico. We continued though New Mexico to stop for dinner in Flagstaff, Arizona. We were only one state from home.

At midnight on Friday night, we finally took a break. We stopped at an inn for five hours of sleep and then up again, shower and on the road. We had breakfast in Barstow at the local IHOP. It felt great to be back in California. Three hours later we exited the 10 freeway and started driving toward our office. There we saw Wilshire Boulevard lined with American flags and we felt proud of our city. In a short time, we were home hugging our children and hanging our own American flags.

I cannot tell you how many times I have cried since Tuesday. I have cried for my country. I cried for the sons and daughters we have lost and the sons and daughters we will lose. But we will prevail.

I keep harking back to what Ronald Reagan said in 1977 about Communism. It is so appropriate about what we face today. Reagan said and I paraphrase “My idea of American policy toward Muslim Extremists is simple, some would say simplistic. It is this: ‘We win, and they lose.’ What do you think of that?”

*****

This article was published on September 5, 2021 in Flash Report and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Marxist Nature of Black Lives Matter Exposed in New Book

America has spent years fighting communism outside its borders, but now a Marxist threat is growing from within the country, Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez says.

Gonzalez, author of “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” says the Black Lives Matter organization has encouraged Americans, especially young people, to embrace communist ideology.

In 2020, there “were 633 riots … according to the U.S. Crisis Monitor run out of Princeton [University], and 95% of those riots in which we know the identity of the perpetrator … Black Lives Matter members were included,” Gonzalez says.

Virginia Allen: I am so pleased to be joined by Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez. Mike is the author of the brand new book “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” Mike, the book is out today, congratulations.

Mike Gonzalez: Thank you, Virginia. Yes, I’m very happy.

Allen: You really didn’t mince words with the title of this book: “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” That’s pretty straightforward. But I do want to begin with defining some terms. What exactly do you mean by “new Marxist revolution”?

Gonzalez: When we talk about Marxists, we’re talking about communists. They have tried to take over America for many decades, for many centuries, really. They have always seen America as a rich country, the world leader, at least since World War I. They want to see us as a top target, but they failed miserably.

In all the years as a Soviet Union, they tried to infiltrate us or tried to influence Americans and they failed. This time through Black Lives Matter—and I can get into why—Marxism and Marxist communists have come very close, the closest they’ve ever come, to changing our way of life and that is what is happening right now.

Allen: I found it really fascinating that as you’re going through the book, you’re explaining that very thing, this changing culture and how the Black Lives Matter organization has an agenda. You actually started the book by talking about Frederick Douglass. That fascinated me. Why did you feel the need to give that historical perspective and talk about a figure like Frederick Douglass before diving into this larger conversation about Black Lives Matter?

Gonzalez: Yeah, Chapter 1 starts with Frederick Douglass, the introduction obviously starts with Jan. 6. I explain my understanding of Jan. 6, but I start the book proper on Frederick Douglass because Frederick Douglass really is the best known abolitionist in U.S. history. He was a man of noble character. He was a man of courage. I started with his fight with a sadistic master to whom he had been loaned and how he said he became a man by beating this man who owned them on loan.

I started with him because throughout his life, he was anti-socialist. I describe in the book a meeting in which he spoke and there was a socialist. One of the quirky, weird, odd things about communists and socialists, by the way, [Karl] Marx and [Friedrich] Engels never established a difference between socialism and communism, but they used the terms interchangeably. The socialist speaking with Frederick Douglass really was not putting an emphasis on the abolition of slavery. He was putting an emphasis on the abolition of wage labor.

Communists believed that wage labor—in other words, what we all do—is a continuation of slavery, which is crazy, just as communism is crazy. Frederick Douglass could not stand that this man was saying these things.

To Frederick Douglass, abolition was about one thing: It was about ending slavery, ending this blight upon our country. To communists, abolition is a completely separate thing. They want to abolish the family, the state, and all the institutions. In 1848, when this meeting takes place, Frederick Douglass understood that what we needed to abolish was slavery.

Allen: Yeah. That historical context is so critical for this broader conversation. I loved in the introduction, you really clearly lay out the mission for the book. You say, “This book exists to fill the void in public awareness.” You go on to say, “If journalists will not report on the real nature of the Black Lives Matter organizations and their leaders and if the federal government cannot gather information on First Amendment-protected activities, this book will attempt to correct the record and analyze all the aspects of what transpired in 2020, as well as the historical forces that led up to those events.”

So what then is that real nature of the Black Lives Matter organization and their leaders?

Gonzalez: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I agree with demand on the federal government not being able to collect information on First Amendment-protected activities. I’m saddened by the fact that journalists did not vet, in fact, refuse to vet and did not cover the Black Lives Matter movement.

They covered for them. They de-emphasize or deny the Marxism of their founders—Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and also Melina Abdullah—even though they themselves are quite open about it and make videos saying, “Yeah, I’m a Marxist and I’ve being trained as a Marxist.”

They say this all the time and journalists, when they report on it—which is very, very seldom—they say, I think I quote a PolitiFact fact check, in which he said, “Well, Marxism these days, it’s really considering life through an economic lens.”

No, it isn’t. Marxism is what it is, what it says it is. It’s communism. It is getting rid of the market economy, getting rid of capitalism, which Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors say they want to do. They want to get rid of free markets. They want to get rid of our ability to own property and sell that property or sell our labor for a wage. They don’t even like our system of representative democracy.

Opal Tometi has been very praiseful of the Chavismo in Venezuela. She was photographed with Nicolas Maduro. She believes in this type of direct democracy, which is not a democracy at all. It’s just a dictatorship of one party.

So this is what they want to do. They want to abolish the family. In fact, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation had it on their website that they wanted to really make deep changes to the family system.

I wrote about it with my colleague, Andrew Olivastro, in a piece that was read by over a million people. Within a month, they did what all Stalinists do: They airbrushed that out of their website. All of a sudden that was gone, except that it is in other parts of the literature. They cannot hide this. They want to abolish the American way of life. This is what they’re about.

They hide themselves behind a very good slogan: “Black lives matter.” Who could be against that? If you don’t think that black lives matter, I don’t even want to talk to you. They hide themselves. If they call themselves “Red Ideas Matter,” it would be much more representative of who they are, but of course, like all communists, they hide themselves behind these noble sentiments, like black lives matter.

Allen: That’s really helpful context, Mike. I know you talk about the fact that, for so long, and during the Cold War, America was fighting the Soviet Union and we were fighting communism from afar, but now what we see is that we’re fighting it within our own borders, we’re fighting it from within.

Talk a little bit about how the organization Black Lives Matter is responsible. Are they responsible? Should we blame them for what we see now in this new interest that we see young people having in socialism and in new fascination with communism? Is Black Lives Matter really to blame for that?

Gonzalez: Yeah, let me put it together. First of all, it’s a really sad irony that as we celebrate this year, the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that we’re seeing communist ideas gain such currency in our system.

We spent all these resources, all this time and energy and lives fighting socialism, fighting communism, fighting what [former President Ronald] Reagan called the “evil empire,” the Soviet Union, which was finally dissolved on Christmas Day 1991. The significance of the day is underlining the noble and moral character of our crusade against communism.

It is because of what happened in 2020, the year of turmoil and the riots. There were 633 riots, by the way, at least according to the U.S. Crisis Monitor run out of Princeton. And 95% of those riots in which we know the identity of the perpetrator, Black Lives Matter members were included.

It is because of this that critical race theory all of a sudden jumps the university walls and enters K-12 in full force. We’re seeing as a result of last year, our classrooms completely change and teachers. It was happening before, but it really enters into full force.

We see also critical race theory entering the military, the houses of worship. And corporate America has completely surrendered to this ideology. Sports and every aspect of our lives is because of this. It is because of what happened last year.

The manipulation of the tragedy of George Floyd’s death, which is a tragedy, the manipulation of this into making people believe the leaders of all our key institutions that we are systemically racist and that our criminal justice system is systemically racist—they threw in the towel and accepted all of this.

And we’re telling our soldiers to read critical race theory texts, which say that the Constitution is illegitimate. These are people who volunteered to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and yet, we’re telling them to read Kendi and all these other writers, Ibram X. Kendi, who say the Constitution is an illegitimate document.

This is happening because of the year of unrest that we had the riots and demonstrations, the upheaval, that people want to forget. Nobody wants to talk about it, but we cannot forget what we had after May 2020 for many, many, many months. I’ve written the book just to shine a light on this and say, “We cannot give in.”

In fact, you’ve seen resistance from the American people. I’ve crossed the country and speak to groups from coast to coast and I get hundreds of people, I’m not that electrifying a speaker, and people turn out because they demand information about critical race theory. They want to know what’s going on. They want to have it explained to them.

The resistance is now coming from the grassroots. The American people are standing up and saying, “No, I don’t want these things taught to my children. I don’t want to be trained and go through these reeducation camps at my place of work.” This is a form of workplace harassment, so they’re fighting against what Verizon is trying to do, what American Express is trying to do, and even The Salvation Army has these training programs.

Allen: Well, Mike, I really appreciate the research that you have done on critical race theory. You really are the expert at Heritage on that subject. I encourage all of our listeners, if you want to read Mike’s pieces on this, you can check him out on The Heritage Foundation website.

Mike, you mentioned the riots last year that obviously took the nation by storm and really changed so much in our country. I was fascinated that in the book, you mentioned how Antifa in some ways became a distraction from Black Lives Matter. I was really, really interested in that point. Talk a little bit about that.

Gonzalez: I say that in a way to castigate politicians. Politicians from both parties are not courageous or as courageous as they should be. They don’t want to talk about Black Lives Matter because black lives matter, because of the slogan. They are very shy to talk about these organizations, which are distinct from the concept.

Antifa, which is a much more white phenomenon, these are anarchists. They’re violent anarchists. As I see it, they don’t have a thought-out academic discipline, like Black Lives Matter has critical race theory behind it. They’re all practitioners of critical race theory. Antifa doesn’t have that. Antifa is anarchism and it’s just pure violence, almost for the sake of violence. I think they have goals like overthrowing the state, but they don’t have a well-thought-out program.

Black Lives Matter has bills in Congress. Black Lives Matter has a curriculum that is being taught in many of our children’s schools already. Black Lives Matter has a foreign policy. They came out and supported the communist government of Cuba. As the communist government was rounding up protesters, beating them up, and putting them into prison through kangaroo trials, BLM came out and supported them. BLM came out in support against Israel as Israel was fighting the terrorist group Hamas earlier this year.

So Black Lives Matter has a foreign policy and it has a gazillion dollars. They raised $10 million—well, no, sorry, they raised $100 million last year. It has all these assets that Antifa does not have.

Allen: You mentioned the money and you have a whole chapter in the book specifically titled “Following the Money,” what did you discover as you looked at the money coming into and out of the Black Lives Matter organization?

Gonzalez: There are all these corporations that have gone woke. There are many reasons being given why.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a colleague, he does a lot of [anti-critical race theory] work, has another book out in which he talks about how this is really easy for the CEOs to go woke. This is costless to them, but we’re seeing all these foundations raising money.

A lot of times, as I point out in the chapter devoted to this, these foundations have links, longstanding links, to Marxist groups, such as the Sandinistas. One of these groups is a [pro-People’s Republic of China], pro-Maoism group in San Francisco, the Chinese Progressive Association, which is the financial sponsor of two of the Black Lives Matter affiliates.

The Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco was founded to support the People’s Republic of China against mainland China, against Taiwan. It was founded in the ’70s for that reason.

Allen: In your writing of this book, in the research that you’ve done on the Black Lives Matter organization and critical race theory, ultimately, in your assessment, what’s the end goal for Black Lives Matter? What are they aiming for? You say that they have public policy, they have bills in Congress. What’s their end-all, be-all?

Gonzalez: Their goal is what Alicia Garza said … in 2019, when she was visiting a group of Maine leftists. She said, “What we want to do is dismantle the organizing principle of society.” She said that, and that’s what they want. They want to dismantle the way we’re organized. They want to dismantle the American system.

They say that we’re systemically, structurally, institutionally racist, because they want to pull out all the institutions and want to change all the institutions, all the structures in the very system of America. That is their goal and they hide behind this good slogan that black lives do matter in order to pursue the complete overhaul of the United States.

Look, we have problems, problems that we need to solve, obviously, but we’re still the fairest, most prosperous country in the world where real human flourishing can take place. That’s the reason why people fall from airplanes out of the sky to come to this country, and there’s no line of people leaving to get out.

There’s a very, very long line of people coming to get in because they see, they understand that America is the land of hope for the working man and woman of the world, of any race. These are people coming of all races. If we were a racist country, systemically racist country, we wouldn’t have so many people of all races wanting to come in here and succeeding here and thank God for that.

Allen: This might be a naive question, but why? You’re saying that they want to fundamentally change America, they want to unravel the traditional structure of the family, of capitalism. Why?

Gonzalez: Well, on the family itself, it was Marx and Engels who put that in “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 that they wanted to “abolish the family.”

I don’t think anyone embraces evil qua evil. I think that they do believe that this is an oppressive system. Critical race theorists, just like critical legal theorists, just like critical theorists in the 1930s and ’20s, believe that the West has a superstructure that is oppressive. They admit that capitalism produces the goods, but they say that’s what’s bad about capitalism, because it produces material well-being and that it perpetuates a very oppressive system.

They are crazy, and I’m not a psychologist, but you have to believe that Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Melina Abdullah believe that we live in an oppressive society. Obviously, they haven’t traveled, or they haven’t traveled extensively outside of the U.S.

I have lived in at least seven countries, at least a year, as a foreign correspondent. I lived in Kabul for a month. And I can tell you that compared to the rest of the world, not only are we not oppressive, but we’re pretty, pretty good.

Allen: Where do we go from here then and what is really your hope as readers read the book, what do you want them to take from it?

Gonzalez: I want to open people’s eyes. I want to convince people who are either ambivalent about Black Lives Matter or actually believe that this is a noble endeavor and noble organizations, as a concept, of course it’s noble, but as organizations, no they’re not. And I want to convince people of that.

I also want to stiffen up the resolve of the American people that, no, we shouldn’t allow this here. The American people are exceptionally attached to liberty. We have always been. This is something that has been remarked upon by social scientists and foreign visitors for centuries—G. K. Chesterton and before him, Alexis de Tocqueville and Herbert Marcuse, who hated it.

I want the people who already are suspicious of the BLM organizations to stiffen their spine against this and make sure that this does not take hold. I also want to reach out to people who do believe that these are good organizations, who have been misinformed, who have been manipulated into believing that we live in an oppressive system with systemic racism.

Allen: So critical. Well, the book is “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.” You can get it on Amazon. Mike, final words, anything you’d like to add before I let you go?

Gonzalez: Yes. As I said, America, I don’t want to pretend that we do not have our faults. No system ever is going to be perfect on earth because it’s dealing with flawed individuals, right? Man is flawed, but this is a good country. I traveled the country, I go everywhere. Americans are good people. We have a good system. So before we think about completely overhauling and pulling out the foundations, we should really think hard: Is this really what we want to do?

Allen: Critical. “BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution,” get it on Amazon. Mike, thank you so much for being here.

Gonzalez: Thank you, Virginia.

*****

This interview was published on September 7, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

We Must Free Americans to Work

Established as a federal holiday in the late 1800s, Labor Day marks how American workers have contributed to the country’s successes. It is a holiday to celebrate the dignity of workers—but respecting the dignity of workers demands that we respect the choices they make regarding their careers. But too often, government stands in the way of those choices, tying workers up in unnecessary red tape that prevents them from doing the work they want to do.

That’s why we must free Americans to work. The Goldwater Institute’s Breaking Down Barriers to Work law cuts that red tape and makes it easier for Americans to work in the career of their choice.

At present, around one in four Americans is required to obtain a license in order to be able to do their job—a government permission slip to work in a certain career. These government-imposed barriers exist for a wide range of professions: barbers, plumbers, real estate agents, sign language interpreters, florists, landscapers, coaches, interior designers, and many others. No matter how qualified someone is, Americans must re-apply for permission to work when they move to a new state.

But under Breaking Down Barriers to Work, a new resident of a state is eligible to receive a license to practice their profession, so long as the applicant has held a license in good standing for at least one year and was required to complete testing or training requirements in the initiating state. It’s all about streamlining the licensing process for everyone: State licensing boards don’t have to devote unnecessary time to comparing education or training requirements across all 50 states, and applicants are no longer required to jump through hoops just to continue a career they were already doing safely and productively elsewhere.

Breaking Down Barriers to Work is particularly beneficial for low-income workers—those least able to afford the time and money needed to get re-licensed each time an opportunity across state lines comes up. Having to meet a state’s licensing requirements upon moving there hampers low-income Americans’ ability to take advantage of a job opportunity that arises in another state—in some cases, it may simply be a bridge too far. But Breaking Down Barriers can make it more possible for such a worker to seize an opportunity that comes their way.

Breaking Down Barriers to Work has been garnering bipartisan support in states across the country, because it’s a reform that’s simply common sense. Since Arizona passed Goldwater’s law back in 2019, several states have followed suit: To date, 16 additional states have passed our reform, and you can look for additional states to take up this law in their next legislative session.

And in the states where Breaking Down Barriers is on the books, it’s having real results. So far, nearly 4,000 workers have already benefited from the law in Arizona alone.

This Labor Day, we should keep the dignity of American workers in mind—and in particular, how we can ensure that Americans are free to make a living in the careers they want and need. Breaking Down Barriers is a needed reform to free Americans to work.

*****

This article was published on September 6, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the Goldwater Institute.

Too Little, Too Late: Millions of Biden Voters Regret Their Vote

Millions of people who cast their vote for Joe Biden in the presidential election last year “regret” voting for him, according to a new poll.

According to the latest Zogby Poll, one-fifth of likely voters say they regret their vote for Biden. Zogby says that “on the surface it doesn’t seem like much, especially if you look at the three quarters of likely voters who did not regret their vote,” but it actually matters a lot. And I agree.

“Why does this matter?” Zogby asks. “If you take into consideration the size of the electorate, and how the last two Presidential elections [2016 and 2020] were decided by tens of thousands of votes in a handful of battleground states, this could really hurt President Biden’s chances in 2024.”

The poll looks worse for Biden when you consider the demographics of the voters surveyed. “Some very important groups, who normally lean left and Democrat, were even more regretful about voting for the president in 2020,” noted Zogby.

“For example, younger voters aged 18-29 [27% yes/67% no/6% not sure] and middle aged voters aged 30-49 [30% yes/67% no/4% not sure] were much more likely to regret voting for Biden than older voters aged 50-64 [10% yes/87% no/3% not sure] and 65+ [6% yes/91% no/3% not sure].”

The poll also found that 29 percent of Republicans who voted for Biden regret their vote (which seems low to me) and 21 percent of Democrats regret their vote.

*****

Continue reading this article, published September 3, 2021 at PJ Media.

Biden’s Ammunition Ban Is Part Of The Left’s Plot To Disarm Americans

The gun prohibition lobbies have discovered that even if they can’t ban guns, choking off ammunition is an effective way to prevent people from using them.

The Biden administration recently prohibited the import of ammunition from Russia. That’s bad news for American firearms owners, but there may be much worse to come.

The gun prohibition lobbies, having mostly failed in their campaigns to convince legislatures to ban guns, have intensified their efforts to disarm Americans by other means. The Biden ammunition ban is one step in the process.

If you’ve tried to buy ammunition in the last year and a half, you know how bad the shortage already was, even before the new ban. In a sense, Joe Biden has been a contributor to the shortage since 2020.

Gun and Ammunition Sales Were Already Surging

When presidential nominees declare an aggressive anti-liberty agenda, many Americans prudently exercise their rights while they still can. If an anti-rights candidate wins and starts implementing a gun-control agenda, the urgency increases. Thus, arms and ammunition purchases surged in 1993-94 (early Bill Clinton), 2008-09 (early Barack Obama), 2012-13 (Obama making gun control a top second-term priority), 2016 (Hillary Clinton campaign), and 2020 (Biden campaign).

Biden was, however, not the only problem. Rising COVID-19 cases worried many Americans that police forces might be temporarily spread thin. Thus, March 2020 saw a huge (and still enduring) surge in ammunition buying, beginning to outstrip supply.

Then came the summer of violence, as Marxists, leftists, and other opportunistic malefactors robbed, burned, looted, and murdered with impunity. Many law enforcement agencies stood idle. While rioting has abated in most cities, it will resume whenever the organizers decide to turn it on again. Meanwhile, the police have been partially defunded in some cities, and vilified and demoralized everywhere.

Then came the summer of violence, as Marxists, leftists, and other opportunistic malefactors robbed, burned, looted, and murdered with impunity. Many law enforcement agencies stood idle. While rioting has abated in most cities, it will resume whenever the organizers decide to turn it on again. Meanwhile, the police have been partially defunded in some cities, and vilified and demoralized everywhere.

Given that so many governments have demonstrated that they cannot or will not protect citizens from individual criminals or from violent mobs, it is no wonder that so many Americans have decided to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their families. But they can’t do that if they can’t buy ammunition.

A Maxed-Out Market

In 2020 about 8.4 million guns were purchased by first-time gun buyers. Like Americans who already owned guns, these newcomers might, in ordinary times, buy a few boxes at a time, for target and safety practice. But in today’s extraordinary times, many new and old gun owners are seeking to buy more, since they do not know if they will be able to buy ammunition at all in the future. Politicians from coast to coast used the pandemic as a pretext to shut down gun stores. No one can predict when they will do so again.

America’s ammunition manufacturers have responded to the full limits of their capacity. Many factories are operating 24 hours a day. But because the continuing effects of COVID-19 have disrupted supply chains, there are many materials bottlenecks that limit manufacturing output.

Input prices have also soared. For example, a pound of copper cost $2.55 on Sept. 2, 2019, and $4.30 on Sept. 2, 2021. Ammunition prices in many calibers have at least doubled. The backorders at ammunition manufacturers now stretch out to a year or more. Hornady Manufacturing Company — known for very well-engineered self-defense and hunting ammunition — said in May 2021 that it already had orders for its next two and a half years of production.

The ongoing ammunition shortage is seriously impairing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Many gun owners have cut back on practice because they cannot be sure they will be able to replace the ammunition they use. Some firing ranges are not even able to sell customers a box of ammunition. The shortage is particularly burdensome for the millions of Americans who purchased their first firearm in 2020 and are being deprived of practice opportunities.

Drying Up Import

On August 20, 2021, the Biden administration announced it would not issue new licenses for the import of ammunition from Russia. Existing licenses were not affected. Ostensibly, the import bans are sanctions against the Russian government for its attempted murder of dissident Aleksey Navalny (although the seriousness of the Biden administration’s sanctions policy is questionable).

In 2020, 765 million units of Russian ammunition were imported into the United States — more than from any other nation. The calibers most affected by the Biden import ban are 7.62×54, 7.62×39, 5.45×39, 5.56×45, and match-grade .22 rimfire. Those first four calibers are mainly for AK platform semi-automatic rifles. AK rifles are manufactured by U.S. companies and by overseas exporters. Functionally, these popular rifles (and sometimes large pistols) are alternatives to the even more popular AR platform.

In general, AK rifles are manufactured to looser tolerances than ARs. This makes them less accurate, especially at longer distances. But they are also amazingly durable, and function well even under conditions of hard use, such as exposure to dirt.

Jim Grant, an editor of the AmmoLand website, urges Americans not to worry: other foreign countries export the above calibers to the United States, and by the time the existing Russian import licenses expire, some of the Russian manufacturers may be able to shift production to other nations.

Biden’s Ban Isn’t the Only Threat

Although the ammunition shortage may ease up in a year or two, the gun prohibition lobbies have more restrictions on their agenda. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby wants America to adopt the British system, in which guns and ammunition must be stored in separate, locked safes.

“We are all safer” in such a system, the Bloomberg lobby claims. True enough, if “we” means “violent home invaders.” But having to open two safes in a few seconds when invaders have crashed through your home’s back door makes life perilous for your family.

Perhaps the biggest current threat is a recent California law misleadingly billed as “background checks for ammunition.” As the history of gun control shows, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California. California prohibits mail-order sales. So rural Californians might have to drive hours to find a retail store with the ammunition they need.

If you can find a store with the necessary ammunition, the California statute requires the ammunition buyer affirmatively to prove American citizenship. Don’t have a handy certified copy of your birth certificate? California will take up to 22 weeks to issue you one. If you can’t get a certified birth certificate (or a passport, which usually requires a birth certificate to obtain), then you can never buy ammunition in California.

If you do have a certified birth certificate, the ammunition background check can begin. It is very different from the background check for firearms purchases.

Don’t Californicate the Gun Market

For the typical firearms background check, the buyer’s identity is checked against lists of prohibited persons (e.g., persons with felony convictions, unlawful aliens who were apprehended, persons under domestic restraining orders). In contrast, the ammunition check blocks sales to everyone who is not on the California registry of gun owners.

California’s handgun registry was created in 1990, and the long gun registry in 2014. If you bought your firearm before that, you won’t be on the list, and your ammunition purchase will be denied. You will also be denied if your current address is different from where you lived when you bought your gun.

As a result, 99.8 percent of California ammunition purchase denials are erroneous. The California appeal system for wrongful denials is opaque and slow. The apparent net effect of California’s “background checks for ammunition” has been to deter or prevent at least 2 million law-abiding Californians from purchasing ammunition.

As California illustrates, the gun prohibition lobbies are more sophisticated than ever, and they have discovered that even if they can’t ban guns outright, choking off ammunition is an effective way to prevent people from using guns.

*****

This article was published September 7, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Surge in Antisemitism Linked to Spread of Critical Race Theory

There’s a strong connection between critical social justice ideology, including critical race theory, and a rising tide of antisemitism around the globe, according to a new report from the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values.

As more businesses and governments adopt initiatives based on critical social justice ideology, antisemitic and other forms of bigotry are flourishing.

“When you hold an ideology that there are really only two kinds of people in the world, those that are oppressed and those that are oppressors, you’re going to end up empowering ideas of antisemitism,” says David Bernstein, a longtime Jewish advocate as well as the founder and CEO of the Gaithersburg, Maryland-based Jewish Institute for Liberal Values.

He joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss his organization’s new report, as well as the implications for continued global acceptance of critical social justice ideologies.

Doug Blair: Our guest today is David Bernstein, a longtime Jewish advocate and founder and CEO of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values. David, thank you so much for joining us.

David Bernstein: Great to be with you.

Blair: Great. Your organization just released a white paper on how critical social justice ideology has led to an increase in antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. Before we get into the white paper, would you be able to start by defining for our listeners what exactly critical social justice ideology is?

Bernstein: Sure. Critical social justice ideology is an umbrella term for critical race theory and other critical ideologies that we’re seeing—critical gender ideology, for example. It basically holds that bias and oppression are not just a matter of individual attitudes, as we’ve traditionally thought about them, but are embedded in the systems and structures of society. It also holds, problematic, in my view, that only those who are adversely affected by those systems, only the system’s victims, have standing to define racism or prejudice or bigotry for the rest of society.

That’s what we’re talking about here, is that ideology, which has taken hold in so many institutions in American life in the past several years, and particularly in the past year is producing antisemitism, among other problems, of course.

Blair: Where is this located? Are we finding critical social justice ideology in schools and certain political viewpoints? Where do we find this ideology present in our culture?

Bernstein: Yeah, I mean, it’s pretty much everywhere, or almost everywhere. You’re seeing it in newsrooms now, as you’ve seen it in The New York Times recently. You’re seeing it in health care institutions, in medicine, in scientific institutions quite ominously. Can you imagine how that’s going to corrupt scientific research over time? We’re seeing it in K-12 schools, obviously in universities and schools of education. We’re seeing it in the nonprofit world.

It’s pretty much everywhere. It’s in major corporations that are doing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that are quite liberal in nature. We’re seeing it really take hold in a vast array of institutions in American life.

Blair: All right. Now, we have a definition of what this ideology is, what critical social justice ideology is. We can dive into your report. Let’s start with the top line. What relationship did your research find between critical social justice ideology and antisemitism?

Bernstein: When you hold an ideology that there are really only two kinds of people in the world, those that are oppressed and those that are oppressors, you’re going to end up empowering ideas of antisemitism. For example, this idea of Jewish privilege, which is an offshoot of white privilege.

When you say that there’s only oppressors and oppressed, then Jews who have succeeded largely in American society are going to be viewed as the oppressor class, and Israel, which has succeeded largely in the Middle East, is going to be viewed as the oppressor country. That, in the most simple form, is the problem, but it gets more complicated and sometimes more ominous as you look into it more.

I mean, the idea, for example, of intersectionality, which I’m sure your listeners are familiar with, this idea that all forms of oppression are related. That’s a multiplier of this idea of Jewish privilege, and makes it very hard for people to identify with Jews or anybody who’s perceived to be part of the privileged classes.

We can go into some of the other findings as well, but let me just add one more before we do that: equity. This idea that Ibram X. Kendi, a professor at Boston University, has popularized, that all disparities are a function of racism and discrimination.

If there are certain groups that are being discriminated against, and that’s what accounts for all their disparities—not just some of their disparities, but all of the disparities—then there must be people who succeed who are complicit in the system that brought the others down, and that’s Jews, that’s Asians, and other successful groups. It can be weaponized and has been weaponized against Jews in a way that’s increasing the level of antisemitism in society.

Blair: Right. You’ve mentioned intersectionality amongst other concepts that exist in a critical social justice ideology. You define in your report intersectionality as the theory that various identities interact in ways that create compounded discrimination or disadvantage constituting an intersecting system of oppression. In the sort of base level of this, where do Jews fit into the system to somebody who believes in this critical social justice ideology? What do Jews have to do in this system?

Bernstein: It’s very hard for people who buy into this ideology to look at American Jews who have been largely successful or are in their eyes white, and they’ve defined us as white, to say that we’re not part of the oppressor class. We must be, because we’re successful and you can only succeed in this worldview by holding other people down, by getting a bigger slice of the pie for yourself.

No matter how hard Jews tried—and we have tried. I tried, by the way, that’s part of what I would try to do in engaging other communities, engaging progressive spaces in my previous work, was to position Jews as being a marginalized group. We’re marginalized, like your groups are marginalized. And we should have our voice in the intersectional club, but that doesn’t work. It didn’t work. They just do not see it that way.

You also have sort of the intersection, if you will, with the Israeli-Palestinian cause. People insisting that Palestinians are the oppressed group and Israel is the oppressor. Then they look at the American Jewish community that is largely but not entirely supportive of Israel and they say, “OK, you must be part of the oppressor class,” and that’s how we’ve been marked.

Blair: One of the things that I’ve kind of been considering as I was reading this paper is it feels like a lot of the time when incidents of antisemitism come up, we’re reacting to a specific incident. It’s reactionary politics as opposed to a sort of ongoing discussion about where this comes from.

For example, when Black Lives Matter or an activist said something that’s pretty blatantly antisemitic, it seems like we’ll focus more on the specific thing that was said as opposed to the root ideology that leads activists to believe the antisemitic thing that they just said. Do you feel that this is sort of a true assessment of what’s going on? Why or why not?

Bernstein: Yeah. If there’s one finding in this paper that represents a wholesale departure from the traditional Jewish community approach to fighting antisemitism, it’s that we believe that the current ideological environment is like fighting antisemitism in a game of whack-a-mole.

The ideology is going to continue to produce incidents of antisemitism. If we continue to go and condemn this person and condemn that person, which we could do and should do, I guess, but without recognizing that the root cause ideology, the wellspring from which this comes is critical social justice ideology, we’re not really fighting the root problem.

There, I would say that we’ve got to take a massive strategic shift in how we think about fighting antisemitism. It doesn’t work to just fight antisemitism. You have to fight the underlying ideology. You have to start challenging people who claim that they have a monopoly on the truth when it comes to racism and race.

You have to say, “No, I’m sorry. We have the right to speak as well.” You’ve got to stick up for liberalism, because if liberalism starts to slip, and liberalism, by the way, I mean small “L” liberalism, and that is the free expression of ideas in society, if that starts to slip and give way to wokeism, then we’re not going to fare well. Jews are not going to fare well, other minorities won’t fare well either.

So we’ve got to start fighting that fundamental underlying ideology that’s giving rise to antisemitism and not just the antisemitic expressions of it.

Blair: One of the things that I’ve also been considering a lot as we were talking about concepts like intersectionality and this sort of focus on race, like in critical race theory, that both in America and worldwide, Jews are ethnically a minority. We’ve talked about the successes of the Jewish people, but how has it become so ingrained in both conspiracy theories and in critical social justice ideology that Jews are oppressors?

Bernstein: Yeah. Jews have always occupied a very strange space in societies where they lived. Jews have a very resilient culture and have been able to largely succeed in almost any society that they’ve been in. They’re perceived as sort of being intermediary. They are, in the eyes of, let’s say, white supremacists in this country, they’re viewed as the people that are bringing in other minorities to pollute the white dominant culture. Right? …

When you hear people with tiki torches say that Jews will not replace us, that’s what they mean. The Jews will have been the intermediaries that have allowed more Mexicans and other people to come in and replace us white people. That occupies a very special place in their imagination.

I think in the intersectional worldview, also, Jews are really confounding, in a way. We claim to have been discriminated against. We had this thing called the Holocaust that happened to us, we’ve been discriminated against, they see the hate crime statistics, and yet we’re white and successful. In a way, we’re a standing contradiction to that worldview and they have to shove us into one of those two boxes, which leads to sort of the erasure of our identity.

Blair: I do think it’s very interesting that Jews kind of occupy this space of simultaneously the oppressor, but like, historically speaking, you can acknowledge that the Jews have been persecuted on a world scale.

Speaking of a world scale, I would like to talk to you a little bit about the upcoming world conference on racism that is set to take place this month. Rather famously, the U.S. has previously boycotted these types of U.N.-backed conferences because they have a very strong anti-Israel bias. These conferences will regularly refer to Israel as an apartheid state and discuss how evil the country is on a variety of levels. With that in mind, is there a difference between antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment? On that note, is it possible to be critical of the state of Israel without wading into antisemitism?

Bernstein: I mean, absolutely. I mean, there’s nobody more critical of Israel than Israelis. You see that every day in any Israeli newspaper you might look at in English or Hebrew.

Many American Jews, myself included … we care about Israel. We love Israel. We might define ourselves as Zionists, people who believe in the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. And yet, we are critical of specific Israeli acts, policies that we think might be counterproductive. Many of us will say so publicly. We’ll say, “We think that’s wrong,” and, “Israel should do ‘X’ instead of ‘Y.’” That is entirely consistent with seeing Israel as a normal country or even caring about the Jewish state.

What’s not normal is when people start to deny the very right of the Jewish people to have a state, which is what you see in places like the World Conference on Racism, or you demonize Israelis as Nazis and judge it by a standard that you would judge no other nation.

That’s where you start to get suspicious and wonder, “Well, maybe there’s something much more sinister behind this than just criticism of a country or its policies.” What you’re really seeing are people who hate the Jewish people and are using that as a kind of a cudgel against the state of the Jewish people, which is the state of Israel.

Blair: It sounds like what you’re saying is that … anti-Israel rhetoric … is being used to disguise antisemitism in a way.

Bernstein: Yeah. By anti-Israel rhetoric, I mean, I would mean not just criticism of Israel, but really vicious criticism of Israel that’s completely out of proportion and irrational. And yeah, I think it disguises it.

I’m not going to say that there aren’t people who are opposed to Zionism that aren’t antisemitic. I think that there probably are. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews who, for a variety of reasons, theological reasons, don’t think there should be a state of Israel. I’m not going to call them antisemites. I think what you can say is that the phenomena of anti-Zionism is a category of antisemitism, even if there are exceptions to the rule.

Blair: OK. Other than this conference, and I’m sure there are other examples, would you be able to list some other things that are international manifestations of antisemitism and anti-Zionism?

Bernstein: Yeah. I mean, we’ve seen over the years, especially in the wake of like a war with Gaza, conflict of Gaza, these massive, very often violent protests.

I remember in Malmo, Sweden, I think it must’ve been around 2006, there were these massive protests against the Jewish community, major threats to synagogues and others. You had the mayor of Malmo blame it on the Jews for their support for Israel.

You see that in some European countries and you see, as we recently saw in the United States, by the way, in LA and New York, during the last Gaza round in May, you saw people beaten on the streets. I mean, literally like stopped and beaten at restaurants. These are manifestations of violent antisemitism that really comes from the left side of the political spectrum.

Blair: You’ve spoken a little bit on the implications for the sort of other oppressed classes. I think you’ve talked a little bit about Asians and other racial groups. Are there larger implications in our American society for the proliferation of critical social justice ideology beyond Judaism and antisemitism?

Bernstein: Absolutely. I would even say my primary critique of critical social justice or the imposition of critical justice is the fact that it’s fundamentally illiberal. It’s meant to try to stifle conversation. It stifles science. It stifles the free exchange of ideas.

It makes it harder to solve problems because how can you solve a problem if you’re not allowed to try to define it? In other words, if the only permissible explanation for disparity in the world is systemic racism, and if you proffer any other possible explanation for it, you’ll be deemed a racist, how are you going to actually solve that problem? Because racism doesn’t account for why there’s disparity in many cases.

I think it is fundamentally illiberal and it will create bad social outcomes and it will prevent people from talking to each other. It will be bad for race relations. I think it has many, many bad outcomes besides just the antisemitism and anti-Asian sentiment and the like.

Blair: Given that we can acknowledge that, obviously, antisemitism is a problem, what advice do you have for our listeners who want to push back against the rising tide of antisemitism and anti-Zionism around the globe today?

Bernstein: Yeah, I think it’s time that they recognize that there is this ideology at its root cause and that we have to start supporting liberalism. There, I’m really advocating for a new coalition.

I think the Jewish community has been very focused on sort of engaging the left and the far left of the American political system so that we can stop it from becoming too anti-Israel or too antisemitic. I don’t think that’s working well.

I think the lion’s share of our resources, our energies have to be to building a new coalition, groups with Asian Americans, and black heterodox thinkers, and Latino business leaders, and the like. A new centrist coalition that, on both sides of the political aisle, stands up for the liberal proposition of a society where people can express ideas and think out loud together.

I think that’s the kind of society we want to live in, and that’s the coalition we ought to create. That means that we have to create new institutions that fight for liberalism, and we have to create new institutions that aren’t captured in some cases by woke ideology that are right now making it hard for these institutions to function effectively.

Blair: Given that, do we have any examples of a positive success story that we can point to and say, “Hey, this is working. This is helping out”?

Bernstein: This is a very new phenomenon. I think, obviously, we’ve been watching critical social justice take over in certain institutions for quite a few years and certainly in the academy, but it was really after George Floyd’s murder that we saw … this racial reckoning really start to take effect. A lot of institutions started implementing new racial justice plans and committees and the like. It’s really been in the last year where you’ve seen this incursion at this level, which has provoked a backlash.

Many of us now are, I mean, we founded our organization only four months ago. There are very few existing institutions in American life, nonprofit advocacy organizations and the like, that were already actively fighting against the incursion of critical social justice ideology.

We’re learning as we go along. We’re making some headway in certain places. There are examples of us being able to get more and more people out of the woodwork and fighting against it. We’ve seen some institutions back off from their previous woke pronouncements and the like. But we’re just getting going and we’re going to have to find what works over time.

Blair: Glad to hear that things are going positively. David, we are running a little bit low on time, but I wanted to give the last word to you. Where can our listeners go to learn more about your organization and the work you’re doing to fight antisemitism?

Bernstein: Sure. We are JILV.org, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values … They can find us on Twitter at @JILVORG. They can also look into a new organization called the Institute for Liberal Values—which is an umbrella of groups, not just Jewish groups, but education groups and the like—and that’s ilvalues.org, and it’s coming into existence as we speak. Check us all out.

Blair: Great. Well, thank you so much. That was David Bernstein, founder and CEO of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values as well as a longtime Jewish advocate. David, thanks again for joining us.

Bernstein: Great to be with you. Thank you.

*****

This article was published on September 3, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.