Public Schools Are Spending Money Like Crazy, Despite Sharp Enrollment Declines thumbnail

Public Schools Are Spending Money Like Crazy, Despite Sharp Enrollment Declines

/in , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

This pattern of spending is unsustainable. These schools are bleeding money.

The public education system has been failing students for years. From misappropriating funds to providing inadequate lessons and passing illiterate students; public schools are losing support. Despite this they continue receiving extensive budgets which do not properly represent enrollment rates, attendance numbers, or staffing issues.

While it is true that 2020 was an extremely difficult year for these taxpayer-funded institutions, those who blame the Covid-19 pandemic are using it as a scapegoat. Before the extensive government pandemic response, the nation was experiencing a teacher shortage and a political takeover of public schools — the likes of which had never been experienced — which has only increased during the political battle over public health issues.

Since 2013 conflicts between teachers and school boards have been reported. This specifically hindered interest in the teaching profession.

In 2015 student interest in the teaching profession dropped by 5 percent in just a year and has continued to decline. Although arguments over teacher pay have been brought to the forefront of the situation, elementary and secondary school teachers made an average of over $63,000 during the 2019-2020 school year, and since then districts have increased pay and added massive bonuses to attract educators back to the profession, inflating budgets, yet still the teacher shortage remains.

New students entering the teaching profession continues to decline as teachers unions and school boards not only battle themselves, but parents as well. Instead of listening to the communities they serve, these powerful organizations are pushing their own political ideologies in the classroom. Educational focus has shifted from teaching core classes like math, science, and history, to identity-based practices which promote critical race theory (CRT) and gender theory.

The National School Board Association itself has fought to persuade schools to adopt CRT and the 1619 project. These race-focused lessons have yet to produce successful results. Because of this, families have disputed replacing sound lessons with untested classroom theories. When expressing their concerns at school board meetings these parents were silenced, and even publicly smeared as “domestic terrorists.”

In addition, during the pandemic various school boards and teachers unions fought to keep children isolated and masked long after it was deemed safe for them to return to in-person learning. Yet, educators still wished to receive full pay as students suffered from widespread learning loss and achievement gaps. It was even discovered that the American Federation of Teachers influenced CDC reopening guidelines, indicating that their power held sway over school health policies, arguably even more than factual public health data.

Parents quickly recognized the harmful effects of lockdowns and long-term masking. Schools which remained locked down longer saw the sharpest enrollment declines. These are, coincidentally, in highly progressive areas where CRT and other identity based lessons have been adopted by teachers and districts.

In 2019 math was deemed a “racist” subject in the state of Washington. By 2021, 70% of students in the area were failing math and more than half failed English. In nearby Oregon, reading and writing requirements have been removed to offer more “equitable” education experiences, and even test taking was deemed “racist” by the National Education Association.

In addition, the Biden Administration is leading the Department of Education to bring race to the forefront of American education on a national level. Instead of allowing states to choose what is best for their populations, government grants are now being awarded based on the implementation of identity-based education practices.

Public school officials have been quick to blame the pandemic for increasing student failures, but teaching equity over performance has yet to lead students to academic excellence. Learning loss is plaguing students across the nation, and instead of utilizing COVID relief money to ensure that students achievement gaps are filled in before Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds (ESSR) expire, progressive states have allocated masses of these taxpayer dollars for identity based lessons.

Taxpayer funded ESSR money was swiftly approved and distributed with little to no oversight during the pandemic. Because of this, less than half of public schools have used COVID relief money to update HVAC units and reduce viral illness transmissions. Instead, districts in New York, California, Illinois, and Minnesota openly spent their pandemic dollars on political endeavors.

The California Department of Education received $15.1 billion in ESSR funding. Instead of focusing all of these taxpayer dollars on public health concerns the state funneled portions of this money into “implicit bias training,” “ethnic studies,” and “LGBTQ+ cultural competency.”

Similarly, New York gained $9 billion in emergency funding. This money was not primarily focused on keeping students healthy or improving classroom air quality but, “anti-racism,” “anti-bias,” “socio-emotional learning,” and “diversity, equity, inclusion,” lessons.

Illinois has also utilized masses of pandemic-relief money to institute equity plans with a specific focus on “anti-racism.” Minnesota took their $1.15 billion in ESSR funds and decided to use a portion of this massive payout for “culturally responsive” training and addressing “gender bias,” with a focus on gender affirmation.

COVID relief funds have been abused and directed to non-pandemic related educational services. All the while, students continue to fail at record rates and leave the public education system entirely.

Public schools are funded by local, state, and federal taxes. Funding is determined by varying factors which usually include student performance, enrollment rates, and attendance. Yet despite experiencing drops in all of these criteria, somehow states are still increasing budgets.

California — which has lost 2.6% of public school students since the start of the pandemic — has approved the largest education budget in the state’s history. This massive increase comes as California’s largest public school district has experienced a 40% chronic absenteeism rate. This reflects a national trend.

A third of Chicago schools are at least half empty, but that didn’t stop the Chicago Board of Education from increasing their 2022 budget from what was approved in 2021. In Washington DC, public school reading and math proficiency has dropped, and enrollment has stagnated, but the mayor proposed a 5.9% budget increase.

Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and other states have all continued spending more despite serving fewer students. These public schools are bleeding money and costing taxpayers billions in debt that will eventually have to be repaid.

Public schools received record amounts of funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, school boards and teachers unions have allowed politics to dominate their policies and teaching practices. As a result, student success rates have suffered, and families are walking away from the system while lawmakers are passing budget increases that only further tax communities.

This pattern of spending is unsustainable. These schools are bleeding money. There is currently no end in sight as districts continue this trend into the 2022-2023 school year and beyond.

AUTHOR

Jessica Marie Baumgartner

Jessica is an education news reporter, homeschooling mother of 4, and author of “Homeschooling on a Budget,” whose work has been featured by: “The Epoch Times,” “The Federalist,” “The New American,” “The American Spectator,” “American Thinker,” “St. Louis Post Dispatch,” and many more.

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

How Electronic Heath Records Have Destroyed Doctor Patient Confidentiality thumbnail

How Electronic Heath Records Have Destroyed Doctor Patient Confidentiality

/in , , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

“The fact is that a bill allowing any employer to deny insurance coverage based on a moral objection – along with giving an employer permission to ask for medical records showing why a woman is taking birth control – opens up a set of problems that I’m sure its sponsors have not fully considered.” — Richard Carmona, United States Surgeon General from 2002–2006.

There was a time because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996 when every American’s health record was kept secret. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention website reads,

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. 

Medical information confidentiality was the one thing that doctors and patients could depend upon. HIPPA was designed specifically to insure “nothing” would be shared without the “patient’s consent.”

That consent has now been compromised.

Today there is a new weapon that is being used to destroy doctor patient confidentiality—Electronic Health Records (EHRs).

Electronic Health Records (EHRs)

Mobius.MD’s Remy Franklin on  reported,

Doctors have been documenting patient health since at least 1,600-3,000 BC, the approximate date of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that depict the practice of keeping medical records. However, paper medical records weren’t steadily used until the early 1900s. In the past 100 years, terminology has shifted from “medical record” to “health record,” suggesting that a patient’s chart should also include health and lifestyle information.

Going from paper medical records to electronic health records is the weapon of choice to monitor both a doctor’s and their patients’ “lifestyle information.” Lifestyle information could include things like a persons diversity, equity and inclusion views, for example.

The monitors are government agencies, medical licensing institutions, hospitals and insurance company employees.

Mobius.MD’s Remy Franklin wrote,

In 2009, EHRs got the boost they were waiting for with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The HITECH Act motivated widespread digitization of healthcare by incentivizing the meaningful use of EHRs and related technology.

These graduated incentive payments worked, and in 2018 over 98 percent of hospitals use EHRs. While adoption by physicians as a whole has been slower (closer to 70 percent), it is now common to electronically share health records between providers.

Widespread EHR adoption has been coupled by a growing industry and rapid innovation. As of 2017, there were over 186 vendors supplying EHR technology to US hospitals. 

So now venders are involved in EHR technology that gives many access to what once was strictly private and confidential.

QUESTION: Why are EHRs a threat to Doctor—Patient Confidentiality?

ANSWER: EHRs are a ball and chain to physicians and patients alike.

The Destruction of Doctor Patient Confidentiality

There are three issues that are key to understand why doctor patient confidentiality is a myth.

  1. Doctors who use EHR are monitored.
  2. Patients don’t know who is looking at their medical records.
  3. Neither a patient nor his or her doctors have any say on protecting confidential medical information.

EMRs are now widely used.

Click here to view a chart titled Trends in EHR adoption show increasing use of advanced functionality.

As Mobius.MD’s Remy Franklin states, “This quickly evolving [EHR] industry is still finding solutions to key challenges like interoperability and security, but the inevitable era of EHRs has arrived.”

Here is one glaring example of what happens today with EHRs. In his Newsletter Steve Kirsch wrote an article titled Why doctors aren’t speaking out. Steve wrote about how we are headed for a perfect storm with escalating health needs and a shortage of doctors because of how we treat them. One doctor wrote to Steve and stated,

Dear Steve,

You ask why doctors are silent. The electronic medical records (EMRs) are a ball and chain to physicians. We are tracked through them. When I wrote a prescription for Ivermectin for a patient, with informed consent (she was vaccinated), I received 5 letters threatening my medical license, my hospital privileges, and my insurance contracts. I would not have received 5 letters if I killed someone in negligence or malpractice. If I have my license pulled, I will no longer be able to help my patients.

I speak to patients on a one-on-one basis, but speaking out would destroy my family. I have children.

Today, EMRs are being used to attack doctors who don’t comply with political practices of keeping patients from getting the treatments, in this case the use of Ivermectin, to prevent the flu.

Never have we seen doctors, nurses, hospitals so afraid to speak out against government medical mandates.

We went to a pulmonologist recently and all of the office and professional staff and patients were required to wear a mask even though there is study after study reporting that masks don’t work to prevent the spread of the Covid flu. When I asked why, as experts in lung issues, they still required wearing masks they were silent.

Why, because, like the doctor above, they are afraid of standing against the “statist medical-government complex.”

In fact the CDC wants people to wear masks to prevent the spread of Monkeypox which is exclusively a sexually transmitted disease passed from gay partner to gay partners and even to women by men who are bisexual.

Every American’s medical information is available to hospitals, insurance companies, government agencies and of course foreign hackers.

EMCs are a national security threat. It is past the time for physicians and patients alike to stand up against the big government bureaucrats.

Why? Your very life may depend up it.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Miami Surgeon Using TikTok To Promote Sex Change Procedures To Teens

Doctors, Scientists and Professionals from More than 34 Countries Declare “International Medical Crisis” due to Diseases and Deaths Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

CNN Medical Analyst Says Masking Stunted Her Toddler’s Language Development—and Taught Her an Important Lesson about Tradeoffs

Why You Shouldn’t Need a Doctor’s Permission to Get Prescription Drugs

Are We Living Under a Kakistocracy: Government by the Worst?

Arizona Governor’s and U.S. Senate Races Highly Competitive, Poll Shows thumbnail

Arizona Governor’s and U.S. Senate Races Highly Competitive, Poll Shows

/in , /by

By Tom Joyce

If a new poll is any indicator, Arizona will have at least a couple of highly-competitive statewide races on the ballot this November.

The poll released by Emerson College this week found that the incumbent in the U.S. Senate race has a slight lead, and no one has a lead in the race to be the state’s next governor.

According to the poll, U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, has a two-point lead over his Republican challenger, venture capitalist Blake Masters. The poll shows Kelly has a 47% to 45% lead. Five percent of voters said they were undecided, and 4% said they plan to support someone else. Additionally, 53% of voters say they think Kelly will win the race, regardless of who they support.

“A stark gender divide exists in the Arizona Senate Election; men break for Masters by a 10-point margin whereas women voters break for Kelly by 13,” Spencer Kimball, Executive Director of Emerson College Polling, said in a press release. “Additionally, Independent voters favor Kelly over Masters, 46% to 37%.”

The numbers are highly similar in the race for governor. In the open seat race, Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Katie Hobbs are tied, according to the poll. Each of the candidates has 46% support. Meanwhile, 6% of voters say they are undecided, and 2% say they plan to support someone else in the race. Most (54%) say that they think Lake will win the race. It’s an open-seat election; incumbent Republican governor Doug Ducey is not seeking re-election.

Voters who responded to the poll said that the economy is the most important issue (36%), while so-called “abortion access” and immigration were tied for a distant second at 16%.

“For those who say the economy is their determining issue this November, 63% support Masters and 66% support Lake,” Kimball said. “By contrast, 98% and 99% of those who say abortion access is the most important issue support Kelly and Hobbs.”

The poll was conducted on September 6 and 7 and had a 3.85% margin of error.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

The Forgetting of 9/11 thumbnail

The Forgetting of 9/11

/in , , , , , /by

By Alexander Riley

How did this coordinated mass murder become so irrelevant?

I have written a lot about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 over the years, including a book on United Flight 93, which went down a few hours from my home in central Pennsylvania. In much of that work, I argued for the importance of that day not only in its human and material cost but also in what it represented as a contribution to the American civil religion. Core aspects of traditional American national identity—masculine heroism, a democratic citizenry prepared to stand in its defense, the deeply spiritual values that were present at the country’s origin—were displayed that day. I believed our collective memory of the response to terror by our heroic co-citizens would be sustained in our culture and perhaps even point the way to a return to previous unity.

The truth is that the farther we get from the date, the more evident it becomes that unifying this country is likely an impossible mission. In fact, the commonly claimed temporary unity produced in the wake of the attacks was itself, alas, illusory. It was not even fleeting. It was never real. The massive rift in this country, only too apparent now, was already visible then, but I and many others hoped our collective response to this national tragedy could bind up those old wounds and move us toward healing our broken culture.

When the planes hit the buildings that September day, I was just at the start of my second year as an assistant professor at a liberal arts college in central Pennsylvania.  In my first year, I had already learned a good deal about how things operated in environments like this one. I had come from a big research university, where it was relatively easy to get lost in the bureaucratic immensity of the place and fail to see the low-level cultural features of contemporary academic life that are unavoidable in smaller institutions. In my new job, I had quickly seen that some faculty, in my own department and elsewhere, were centrally motivated by ideological agendas and not anything remotely connected to the pursuit of Truth. They exercised considerable power over me, an untenured newcomer, at that point, and so I surveyed the landscape relatively silently, taking notes, observing. But I noticed, when I stopped into the school’s bookstore, that many of my colleagues were typically assigning books by advocates and activists rather than scholars. I heard from students some of what went on in other classrooms, and some of it was clearly directed not at teaching the Western canon but at undermining it.

This was already old news for those aware of the culture by then, of course. The culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s had left all the evidence of a system of higher education wholly off the rails, but there were still some older heads around to push things in the direction of balance even if they did not suffice to fully move the scale to the mid-point. So, it was possible to be hopeful that things might change.

Then, on September 12, 2001,  one of the other professors in my department posted an email message to the members of the department, calling for peace and reconciliation with the people who had carried out the attacks and stating that our violent history was the cause of the retributive strikes against us and that we deserved this counterblow. This person asserted that the best thing we could do was to come to a collective reckoning with our own malevolent role in world affairs and to spend any resources we had on the poor populations of the countries from which the terrorists had sprung, from which they always, invariably spring.

Several others echoed and approved the sentiment. This was the day after the attacks, with thousands of corpses yet unburied.

I responded, asking them why they believed such an approach would be successful. I was told that war had never accomplished anything. When I listed a few of the things war plainly has accomplished, with saving Europe from Nazism at the top of my list, I was reminded that innocent people had died in that and in all wars, so they couldn’t possibly have been just. And, in any event, the United States had profited from our victory in the war, which made it still more impossible that anything we did in that affair could be seen as morally correct.

When I realized that no resolution of the impasse was forthcoming, and fearing a bit that I was taking professional risks without any real possibility of a good outcome, I asked my interlocutors at least to remember that the destructive evidence of the attacks was still smoking in New York City and Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Given that fact, and that we didn’t even yet know how many of our fellows were lying dead in those places, perhaps they might measure their statements in that light, at least for a little while.  I was told that none of us was innocent of guilt in what had happened.

In the emotional fervor of the days to come, I put that exchange aside and tried to concentrate on the national effort to mourn the dead. But it should have been clear already that people with the views that had been expressed by my interlocutors were not interested in trying to figure out how to unify the country. In the moment of the country’s greatest tragedy in at least a half-century, they leapt up not to defend but to denounce it.

Twenty-one years later, the divide has only widened and deepened.

*****

Continue reading this article at American Mind.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Giffords [Wife of Senator Mark Kelly] Opens Florida Office, Backs Anti-Gun Extremist Candidates thumbnail

Giffords [Wife of Senator Mark Kelly] Opens Florida Office, Backs Anti-Gun Extremist Candidates

/in , , , , /by

By Editors at Second Amendment Foundation

Editors Note: Gabbie Giffords is the wife of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and a former liberal Congresswoman from southern Arizona. Kelly, who is making every effort to appear to be a moderate Democrat, is actually a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment. Don’t be fooled. Conversely, his Republican opponent Blake Masters is a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. If you believe in Second Amendment rights and the rest of the Bill of Rights is important, support Blake Masters.

Progressive Democrats are advancing a multi-prong attack on personal safety. They have let huge numbers of dangerous felons out of prison ostensibly because of Covid, they want to put fewer people in prison supposedly because of “racial equity”. They promote prosecutors who will not work to put criminals in prison, weaken criminal statutes,  reduce or eliminate bail, push for early release, and strive to both defund and hamstring the work of local police. The results in many Democrat-run cities are obvious: widespread carnage and lawlessness. Thus leaving citizens more exposed than ever to violent criminals, they seek to confiscate or restrict access to firearms by citizens. In a crisis, the citizen is the first responder, and cannot rely on the government. If Democrats get your guns, you will be defenseless against the Democrat crime wave.  Arizona must not return Mark Kelly to the US Senate. He is just too dangerous to our safety and our Constitutional rights. It is Florida today, and tomorrow, it will be Arizona.

One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of the criminals and paid so little attention to their victims. Thomas Sowell

Gabbie Giffords is taking aim at the Gunshine State.

In a press release issued this week, she announced the creation of Giffords Florida, which she described as “a new initiative dedicated to supporting candidates for local, state, and federal office in the Sunshine State who have the courage to fight gun violence.”

According to the release, this is Giffords “first and only state-specific political initiative,” as well as the “largest bilingual gun safety political program focused entirely on Florida.”

Giffords, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has more than $5 million in assets. Their law center, located in San Francisco, has more than $10 million.

Giffords bankrolled their new Florida office with $1 million, which they say they will spend on “endorsing candidates with strong records on gun safety, helping get out the vote for gun safety candidates, conducting research about Floridians’ views on gun violence prevention measures.”

Much of their efforts and money will be spent in Miami-Dade, promoting a slate of anti-gun candidates Giffords calls its “gun safety champions.”

Giffords endorsed Democrat Janelle Perez for Florida’s Senate District 38, which consists of part of Miami-Dade county.

According to her website, Perez, a political newcomer, holds extreme anti-gun views, including the licensing of gun owners.

“Much like driving a car requires a license, Janelle supports license requirements for owning a gun to keep our community safe,” her website states. It does not draw a distinction between owning a firearm, which is a constitutional right, and operating a motor vehicle, which is not.

Perez also supports a ban on “military-style assault rifles,” increased background checks “for every gun sold in the state of Florida,” and a ban on “modifications that increase the rate of fire.”

In a written statement, Perez does not appear to know the difference between constitutional carry, which Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-dominated state legislature support, and open carry.

“Our Governor and radical Republicans in the state Legislature have committed to passing open carry next year – putting our children, our community, and our future at risk for preventable gun violence,” Perez said in a statement. “When elected to the Florida Senate, I vow to fight for the kind of responsible, commonsense gun safety measures supported by the majority of Americans that protect us all.”

Giffords Florida steering committee consists of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, State Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, and others. The committee is chaired by former Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

*****

This article was published by the Second Amendment Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Facebook Bans GELLER REPORT For Posting New Data About Covid Vaccine Concerns thumbnail

Facebook Bans GELLER REPORT For Posting New Data About Covid Vaccine Concerns

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Click here to view the Facebook censorship of the Geller Report.

Alarming data has continued to emerge concerning the side effects and contraindications of the Covid vaccine. Geller Report reports these findings. In response, Facebook has suspended our account. Whether this is at the behest of the Biden regime or Facebook’s own terrible, dangerous initiative is not known but the government has been colluding with social media platforms to silence those who dare report the facts.

Mark Zuckerberg recently revealed the government pressured Facebook to censor certain news stories.

Further, newly released emails show Facebook and the Biden regime held weekly/monthly meetings to discuss who and what to cennsor on their platform.

This is fascism and a flagrant violation of our unalienable first amendment rights. Despite these revelations, the unconstitutional suppression continues. There is no law, no accountability by a rogue regime.

Every Geller Report post is sources and linked, most linking back to the primary source – the study or analysis based on data.

Even the CDC Admits Post-Vaccine Myocarditis Concerns That Were Labeled Covid Misinformation Are Legit.

Note to Geller Report readers: I will never stop posting about it. I don’t care if they completely disappear me. Twitter has already permanently bannd me. They are killing people and destroying young people’s lives.

You can follow me on Gettr here and Truth Social here,

CDC Deletes Statements On Covid Vaccine Safety, Bolsters Concerns About mRNA and Cancer, Drastically Changes Guidelines, Fauci Denies Ever Suggesting Lockdowns

The country is in trouble.

RESOURCES:

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

Unusual Toxic Components Found in COVID Vaccines, ‘Without Exception’: German Scientists

Gov’t Database Reveals 10,000% Increase in Cancer Reports Due to COVID Vaccines

Australia: The More “Vaccines” You’ve Had, The Sicker You’ll Be

Stunning New Data: Vaccines now RAISE the risk of death from Covid

Death claims up $6 BILLION: Fifth-largest life insurance company paid out for 163% more working-age deaths in 2021 after covid “vaccines” were unleashed

British Government Has Quietly Withdrawn Its Approval for Injecting Pregnant Women and Breastfeeding Women with Covid Vaccine

The British Government Has Begun Paying $140,000 for COVID-19 Vaccine Damage Victims

PFIZER DOCS: 44 Percent of Pregnant Women Miscarried After Receiving Pfizer Vaccine

COVID Vaccines Increase Menstrual Irregularities Thousandfold, Fetal Abnormalities Hundredfold: Doctors’ VAERS Analysis

MIT Scientist Warns Parents NOT TO GIVE CHILDREN Vaccine, Could Cause ‘Crippling’ Neurodegenerative Disease In Young People

Deaths Among Female Children Increase by 57% Immediately After Taking Covid-19 Vaccine

A Doctor Explains Why Doctors Aren’t Speaking Out thumbnail

A Doctor Explains Why Doctors Aren’t Speaking Out

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

None of this would have been possible had the Democrats not socialized healthcare under Obamacare – government takeover of healthcare.

Why doctors aren’t speaking out

Written by a doctor. Everyone should read this. We are headed for a perfect storm with escalating health needs and a shortage of doctors because of how we treat them.

By: Steve Kirsch

Doctors have been whistleblowers throughout history. They’ve also been silenced | Medicine | The Guardian

Dear Steve,

You ask why doctors are silent. The electronic medical records (EMRs) are a ball and chain to physicians. We are tracked through them. When I wrote a prescription for Ivermectin for a patient, with informed consent (she was vaccinated), I received 5 letters threatening my medical license, my hospital privileges, and my insurance contracts. I would not have received 5 letters if I killed someone in negligence or malpractice. If I have my license pulled, I will no longer be able to help my patients.

I speak to patients on a one-on-one basis, but speaking out would destroy my family. I have children. Quite frankly, I have seen that patients want me to risk myself for them, but are wholly unwilling to support their physician. The population is lazy.

I can save your life, but I get paid less for my work than some hairdressers. My education is not valued by society, as supported by the rise of the “advanced practice provider.” I am almost done with my profession. I hope to retire in the next 1-3 years, decades before I had planned. I love what I do, but cannot take this toxic and broken system any longer. This is why so many have retired in the past couple years, and this trend will continue.

I am attaching the latest California bill to throttle physicians. I hear no outcry. I told patients over a year ago that the vax would not prevent them from getting COVID. It was never studied to do so. I actually read the studies. This of course was disinformation, but has now been proven to be true.

Who will be the truth czar for healthcare? How am I to keep up? I am left to assume that the population wants the government to guide their healthcare. That is, in fact, the plan. The healthcare system will be socialized within the next 5 years I predict. And the population will be shocked. No one is paying attention.

I thank you for all you are doing, and wish you the best of luck. I feel like you are David against Goliath.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Toronto doctor asks Health Canada about pregnancy drug, gets 212 pages of censored information

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

New Study Shows A Third of Working Families Can No Longer Afford Basic Needs thumbnail

New Study Shows A Third of Working Families Can No Longer Afford Basic Needs

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

“A ‘mixed economy’ is a society in the process of committing suicide. If a nation cannot survive half-slave, half-free, consider the condition of a nation in which every social group becomes both the slave and the enslaver of every other group. Ask yourself how long such a condition can last and what is its inevitable outcome. When government controls are introduced into a free economy, they create economic dislocations, hardships, and problems which, if the controls are not repealed, necessitate still further controls, which necessitate still further controls, etc. Thus a chain reaction is set up: the victimized groups seek redress by imposing controls on the profiteering groups, who retaliate in the same manner, on an ever widening scale.” — Ayn Rand The Ayn Rand Column “The Cold Civil War” 

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. By what criterion of justice is a consensus-government to be guided? By the size of the victim’s gang.” — Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

A full third of working in the families cannot afford basic needs any more.

This is horrible consequence of the Democrats’  “economy of scarcity”  versus the MAGA Republican “economy of abundance.” In other words, communism versus capitalism, individualism versus statism.

New study shows a third of working families can no longer afford basic needs

A third of working families can’t afford basic needs: study

By Snejana Farberov and Patrick Reilly, The New York Post, September, 9, 2022

More than a third of US families that work full-time do not earn enough money to cover their most basic needs, including housing, food and child care, a new study shows.

Researchers at Brandeis University found 35% of American families do not meet the “basic family needs budget” — the amount needed to afford rent, food, transportation, medical care and minimal household expenses — despite working full-time year-round.

And the economic situation is even more dire for working black and Hispanic families, more than 50% of whom cannot afford the basics.

For comparison, a quarter of white families and 23% of Asian and Pacific Islander families are struggling to make rent and buy food, despite holding down full-time jobs.

A study by researchers at Brandeis University’s diversitydatakids.org program shows that 35% of American families with full-time jobs cannot afford the basics.

A study by researchers at Brandeis University’s diversitydatakids.org program shows that 35% of American families with full-time jobs cannot afford the basics.

Jesus Montiel, Krista Mason and their daughter Diana, 2, spend time together at their home in Wyoming, where inflation has been hitting families hard.

Jesus Montiel, Krista Mason and their daughter, Diana, 2, spend time together at their home in Wyoming, where inflation has been hitting families hard.

Low-income families with children are doing especially poorly, according to the survey, with more than two-thirds of full-time workers failing to earn enough to make ends meet.

Most of these families would need to earn about $11 more per hour to fully cover basic expenses, or about $23,500 in additional annual earnings, according to the research.

Meanwhile, black and Hispanic families would need to earn more than $12 per hour — an additional $26,500 per year — just to meet a family budget.

“These results are a wake-up call for decision makers to prioritize policies that address income inequality and racial and ethnic equity and extend real opportunities for economic self-sufficiency,” said Dr. Pamela Joshi, senior research scientist and lead study author.

View Table 1: Job Characteristics of Full-Time Full-Working Families

The study, which is based on 98,000 households, also found that more than half of low-income Hispanic families do not have health insurance, and more than three-quarters do not have pensions.

“When families can’t afford their basic needs, it places stress on parents’ health, and it increases the likelihood that children will continue to lack resources and opportunities that promote their well-being,” said study co-author Dr. Dolores Acevedo-Garcia.

The study offers several recommendations to policymakers to improve the economic outlook for low-income families, including creating more jobs that provide a living wage, expanding income support, and paid family and medical leave.

The results of the survey are based on data from 2015 to 2019, before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic that wreaked havoc on the job market, and before the recent spikes in inflation, gasoline and food prices.

View Figure 1: Additional Hourly Wages Needed by Low-Income Working Families to Earn a Family Budget at the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Americans Spent More on Taxes in 2021 Than on Food, Clothing and Health Care Combined

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

Americans Spent More on Taxes in 2021 Than on Food, Clothing and Health Care Combined thumbnail

Americans Spent More on Taxes in 2021 Than on Food, Clothing and Health Care Combined

/in , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Obscene and wrong. It’s why there was an American revolution and why we were founded as a nation.

Worse still, this legal plunder is funding our ruin and the destruction of our most basic freedoms.

Americans Spent More on Taxes in 2021 Than on Food, Clothing and Health Care Combined

By Terence P. Jeffrey | CNS News | September 9, 2022 |

(CNSNews.com) – According to newly released data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans in 2021 once again spent more on average on taxes than they did on food, clothing and health care combined.

During 2021, according to Table R-1 in the BLS’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, American “consumer units” spent an average of $15,495.28 on food, clothing and health care combined, while paying an average of $16,729.73 in total taxes to federal, state and local governments.

“A consumer unit,” the BLS says in the glossary for its Consumer Expenditure Survey, “comprises either (1) all members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption or other legal arrangements; (2) persons living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in a permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independence; or (3) two or more person living together who use their income to make joint expenditure decisions.”

On average in 2021, American consumer units spent $8,289.28 on food; $1,754.39 on clothing (apparel and apparel-related services); and $5,451.61 on health care.

That equaled a combined $15,495.28.

At that same time, American consumer units were paying an average $16,729.73 in net total taxes.

These included $8,561.46 in federal income taxes; $5,565.45 in Social Security taxes; $2,564.14 in state and local income taxes; $2,475.18 in property taxes; $105.21 in other taxes—minus an average of $2,541.71 in stimulus payments received back from the government.

Read the rest….

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t Believe The Hype About Democrats in the Mid-Terms

These Democratic Mayors Said Their Cities Were ‘Sanctuaries.’ Then The Migrants Showed Up

‘Unconscionable’: Biden Admin Renames Hundreds Of ‘Racist And Derogatory’ Landmarks

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

FLORIDA: County Citizens Defending Freedom Leads Charge to Change Policy on Sexually Explicit Books in School Media Centers thumbnail

FLORIDA: County Citizens Defending Freedom Leads Charge to Change Policy on Sexually Explicit Books in School Media Centers

/in , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

Please read the EPOCH TIMES  article below, We now have forty Winter Haven 912 members who have submitted police complaints against the Polk County School Board as part of the County Citizens Defending Freedom (CCDF) initiative to eliminate sexually explicit books in Polk County school media centers.

Among the four paths Polk County Sheriff Judd suggested in his letter to us the first one was:

“Request the School Board revote on the recommendations I proposed, and Superintendent Heid agreed. This would put in place an opt-in and opt-out policy mandating that parents are the only ones who can authorize their children access to the instant books which contain shocking, inappropriate language anytime the child is under the legal adult age of 19.”

Since the Polk County School Board refused to vote on the policy to be put into place choosing to shirk their responsibility and delegate the decision to Superintendent Heid, we don’t understand why Heid later changed the policy to opt-out based under pressure from four of the same school board members who refused to vote in first place, e.g. Kay Fields, Sarah Fortney, Sara Beth Wyatt and Lisa Miller.

This is just WRONG and he should be urged by Sheriff Judd to reconsider which is what CCDF is doing in their appeal mentioned below.

Florida Citizen Group Leading Charge Against Sexually Explicit Library Books in Schools

Parents file more than 100 police complaints

By Darlene McCormick Sanchez • September 8, 2022

A Florida group isn’t giving up on their fight to stop the Polk County Public Schools from allowing students access to sexually explicit books in school libraries.

County Citizens Defending Freedom (CCDF) filed an appeal with the Polk County School Board on Sept. 6 over “pornographic” titles available to middle and high school children that include graphic descriptions of gay sex and child rape.

“Putting these quarantined books back on the shelves with unfettered access to minors is a blatant violation of Florida statutes and does not put students first,” the group’s complaint said.

In January, the group approached Sheriff Grady Judd—known nationally as a tough, no-nonsense lawman—concerning the books. That same month Superintendent Frederick Heid ordered the books pulled off the shelves for review.

Read more. 

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

Don’t Believe The Hype About Democrats in the Mid-Terms thumbnail

Don’t Believe The Hype About Democrats in the Mid-Terms

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

“Mr. Biden’s attack on 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump in the last election, new polls show these speeches were a disaster.” — Lawrence Kudlow, NY Sun

The Democrats’ are on a treasonous rampage to disprove President Lincoln who said, ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of time.” The Democrats believe you can fool all of the people, all of the time by declaring war on reality.

Americans are a lot smarter than President Biden thinks. They will reject his perverse vision of America.

By: Lawrence Kudlow, NY Sun, September 7, 2022

There’s a growing view inside the mainstream media that President Biden’s recent legislative victories and statements that MAGA Republicans are a threat to democracy and are “semi-fascists” are going to give the Democrats some midterm momentum, that they’re going to overtake the GOP by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

I’m not buying it, and here’s why you shouldn’t either.

First of all, the new legislation is not popular. By 36 percent to 12 percent, an Economist-YouGov poll shows that voters believe the IRA legislation will actually increase inflation. As for the student loan cancellation, a poll from another network shows, by 59 percent to 38 percent, that voters believe that too will increase inflation.

By the way, the latest inflation report for July was 8.5 percent year-on-year and the inflation tracker from the Cleveland Fed predicts an 8.2 percent CPI for both August and September.

As far as Mr. Biden’s attack on 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump in the last election, new polls show these speeches were a disaster. The Trafalgar Group polling of likely voters shows 56 percent believe it was “dangerous rhetoric.” That’s more than 20 points more than those who believe it was “acceptable campaign messaging.”

Just today, Rasmussen Reports also finds that 46 percent say the upcoming midterm election is a “referendum” on Mr. Biden’s agenda. Only 40 percent think it’s more about “individual candidates.”

These early returns on Mr. Biden’s outrageous, hateful, and divisive rhetoric, alongside huge new tax-and-spend Democratic legislation, suggest the Republican cavalry is in very good shape here 61 days before the midterms.

Another lesson: Never believe the mainstream media. Of course voters are going to cast ballots against Mr. Biden’s authoritarian, dictatorial, big-government socialism.

Mr. Biden took a booming economy without inflation and turned it into a high-inflation bust in a little more than a year. His war on fossil fuels has driven gasoline, oil, natural gas, and coal prices sky-high. Ditto for food prices. He can’t even get proper baby formula on store shelves.

He has spent massively, raised taxes, and launched the biggest regulatory assault on business we have ever seen. Real wages for working people have fallen steadily.

He is not only obsessed with climate change, without ever providing any alternate energy replacement, he is similarly maniacal about repealing all the successful Trump tax cuts that gave us the lowest poverty and highest family wages in 50 years.

He wants a battery-powered economy, but won’t let people mine the resources to develop it. His allies want to end gas-powered cars, but are now telling EV owners they can’t recharge their batteries. Why? No electricity. Why? Not enough fossil fuels.

He has weaponized the justice department and the FBI against his arch-enemy, Donald Trump. He lied about the miracle of Operation Warp Speed. He has stifled free speech, calling parents “domestic terrorists” and pressing social media to evaporate the Hunter Biden laptop story. That story, by the way, could’ve changed the 2020 election.

He lied about the Afghanistan exit being a great success. He lies about the open southern border, the millions of illegals crossing it and the scourge of fentanyl that has come with them.

Not only has his economic version of central planning been a complete failure, but he has resorted to an authoritarian, dictatorial, divisive approach that is devoid of truth

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

These Democratic Mayors Said Their Cities Were ‘Sanctuaries.’ Then The Migrants Showed Up thumbnail

These Democratic Mayors Said Their Cities Were ‘Sanctuaries.’ Then The Migrants Showed Up

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Democratic mayors who once touted their cities as sanctuaries for illegal migrants are now complaining about receiving migrants bused from the border.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began busing illegal migrants to Washington, D.C., in April, New York City in early August and Chicago in late August. Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey also began busing illegal migrants to Washington in May.

All of the destinations are considered sanctuary cities, which means illegal migrants’ immigration statuses won’t be reported to authorities. Despite their open rhetoric towards illegal migrants, the Democrat mayors running those cities are now complaining about the arriving buses.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a “public emergency” Thursday to surge more resources as the city continues to receive illegal migrants bused from Texas and Arizona.

Bowser spokesperson LaToya Foster referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to the announcement, which established an Office of Migrant Services.

“We hope this will address any questions that you have that clearly demonstrates and details Mayor Bowser’s commitment and hard work,” Foster said.

Bowser has tweeted since 2016 about Washington’s status as a “sanctuary” for illegal migrants, but is critical of Abbott’s and Ducey’s effort.

“Washington, DC is a sanctuary city. We protect the rights and humanity of all our residents, and our #DCValues and our local culture are guided by a celebration of diversity and inclusivity,” Bowser said in 2018.

I will not let the residents of DC live in fear. The District is & will continue to be a sanctuary city because https://t.co/vJizAweac9 pic.twitter.com/5YuPZZcT13

— Muriel Bowser (@MurielBowser) November 17, 2016

Lightfoot complained on Sept. 1 that Abbott’s effort is “racist and xenophobic,” despite the fact that she’s advertised Chicago as a sanctuary city for years.

“Yes, Chicago must be a sanctuary city,” Lightfoot said in 2019. “We’ve got to stand up to the Trump administration’s racist, anti-immigrant terror and make sure every Chicagoan is safe, regardless of citizenship status. And we’ve got to strengthen the Welcoming City Ordinance by eliminating carve-outs.”

Adams, who has advocated for his city to “remain a sanctuary,” called Abbott’s busing strategy “horrific.”

I think it’s important for people to understand exactly what it means to be a “sanctuary city.” pic.twitter.com/77uWPIknGm

— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) February 1, 2017

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has encountered over 1.9 million migrants at the southern border between Oct. 2021 and July 2022.

Abbott has bused over 7,900 illegal migrants to Washington, over 2,200 illegal migrants to New York City and over 300 illegal migrants to Chicago, according to a statement his office shared with the DCNF. Ducey has sent 1,715 illegal migrants to Washington, his office told the DCNF.

Adams’ and Lightfoot’s offices didn’t respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYC Homeless Officer Suspended For Allegedly Beating Up Venezuelan Migrant

Biden Asks If US Will Be A ‘Nation Of Division’ After Smearing Millions As Threats To Democracy

Lawyer Says Dozens Of Trump Supporters Served With Warrants, Subpoenas Seeking 2020 Election Communications

‘Hell Of A Legacy’: Biden Struggles To Form A Sentence While Promoting Chips Investment

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Unconscionable’: Biden Admin Renames Hundreds Of ‘Racist And Derogatory’ Landmarks thumbnail

‘Unconscionable’: Biden Admin Renames Hundreds Of ‘Racist And Derogatory’ Landmarks

/in , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

The first recorded version of squa was found in a book called Mourt’s Relation: A Journey of the Pilgrims at Plymouth written in 1622. The term was not used in a derogatory fashion but spoke of the “squa sachim or Massachusetts Queen” in the September 20, 1621 journal entry.

“Squaw comes from a language of the Algonquian family in which it meant ‘woman’.” — The True History of the Word Squaw

President Joe Biden’s Interior Department (DOI) released replacement names for almost 650 “racist and derogatory” geographical features on federal lands, the agency said Thursday.

The word “squaw” was determined by DOI’s Board of Geographic Names to be an an “offensive ethnic, racial and sexist slur, particularly for Indigenous women,” according to a press release. The word is from 1622 and means “an Indigenous woman of North America,” according to Merriam-Webster, and it was in the names of canyons, lakes, springs and other geographical features until Thursday.

“I feel a deep obligation to use my platform to ensure that our public lands and waters are accessible and welcoming,” DOI Secretary Deb Haaland said Thursday. “Together, we are showing why representation matters and charting a path for an inclusive America.”

DOI created a Derogatory Geographic Names Task Force in 2021, saying in an order “squaw” will soon be moved out of the names in federal land features. The agency held a final vote on the land name replacements and the Derogatory Geographic Names Task Force received over 1,000 name recommendations during the public comment period, DOI said Thursday.

Karen Budd-Falen, deputy solicitor for DOI’s parks and wildlife division under former President Donald Trump, said the Biden administration is too focused on “political correctness” instead of more important policy issues.

“There are great issues in this country that really need time and attention,” Budd-Falen told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I just worry that we’re so busy worrying about political correctness and we’re not focused on these other issues more pressing issues and issues that are really going to affect the future structure of energy and American rural communities.”

Geographical features in dozens of states, including California, Alaska, Alabama and Pennsylvania are impacted by DOI’s order. While the new land names are effective immediately, the public can still suggest other name changes.

“It’s unconscionable that at a time of record inflation, record high gas prices, and an unsecured border, this is what the Biden administration is focusing on,” Republican Texas Rep. Troy Nehls told the DCNF. “This is yet another attempt to rewrite history to fit the Democrats’ extremist narrative.”

“It’s a shame, and this is not what the American people want,” said Nehls.

DOI did not respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

“Diversity is our greatest strength!” https://t.co/KGdYtJk5Lp

— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) September 10, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

The True History of the Word Squaw

Biden’s Interior Secretary Refers To The US Capital As The ‘Ancestral Homelands’ Of Native American Tribes

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Reproductive Health Care—What It REALLY Means thumbnail

Reproductive Health Care—What It REALLY Means

/in , , , , , , /by

By Bud Hancock

The US Supreme Court recently overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, thus sending the control over a woman’s “right” to an abortion back to the various states to decide. As was expected, that decision  brought a huge uproar and started multiple protests from the pro-abortion crowd. Now, amidst all the uproar resulting from that ruling, we are hearing from groups who are demanding that all women be given ‘reproductive health care’ as a ‘right’, usually paid for using public funding.

What does that mean, exactly? Which crowd is now which and what exactly are they ‘demanding’?

Let’s start by examining their words, individually.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary

  • Reproductive means, “of, relating to or capable of reproduction”
  • Reproduction (from Dictionary.com), means “the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species is perpetuated” (emphasis mine)
  • Health means, “the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit”
  • Care means, “painstaking or watchful attention”
  • Healthcare means, “efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals

If we take these words literally as defined in Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, it seems the protestors demand is for “efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being by trained and licensed professionals through painstaking or watchful attention over the physical human components that relate to the capability of reproduction, resulting in the perpetuation of the species  and a condition of being sound in body, mind or spirit”. 

Sound about right?

The very process of ‘human reproduction’ indicates there is a being who is a ‘reproducer’, a biological woman who, after uniting with a biological man, is able to bring forth a being that results from the act of reproduction (perpetuation of the species). This would be an infant who has grown inside the womb of the biological woman for approximately 270 days.  So, by its very definition, Reproductive Health Care is the process whereby two biological beings, a man and a woman, actually ‘reproduce’ a living being in their likeness, thus ensuring the species is perpetuated.

Based on these definitions, these ‘conscientious people’ are now demanding that the utmost care be provided ensuring that the reproductive process is successful, and the human race can be obedient to the commandment of God, given to Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth”.

Wow. These ‘demanders’ are actually saying they want people to be treated for any physical conditions that are detrimental to overall good physical and mental health and ensure that more and more healthy infants are born into our world, a direct result of women receiving the healthcare they’re demanding.

Did I miss anything?  No? Wow! I am now truly impressed that there are so many groups that care so much about the American people, about women, unborn and newborn infants and their health. Who knew there were so many beautiful people who truly DO care?

Whoa, hold on. I have just been informed that the latest protests demanding ‘Reproductive Health Care” are being promoted by the same people demanding abortion on demand. Are they changing their thinking regarding abortion on demand, or are they really interested in making sure all American women are assured they get proper reproductive health care, so that they can carry their unborn children to term and introduce a new human being into the world? If that’s the case, I am now 100% in agreement with their demands. But they should not even need to make such demands since the world’s most expensive health care system, the Affordable Care Act, ushered in by the Obama/Biden administration and signed into law in 2010, has long been touted as the best possible solution to every healthcare issue in the US.

So then, why are these demands being issued and why is the media even talking about it? Could it possibly be that we have misunderstood the demands being made for “Reproductive Healthcare”? Or is it possible they’re demanding something other than “Reproductive Health Care”?

After doing some research, to my horror, I discovered that the ‘concerned citizens’ making these loud demands for “Reproductive Health Care” are the same people who have been demanding unlimited abortion access, but using different words now and trying to deceive people into believing that allowing abortions on demand is equivalent to “Reproductive Health Care”. Perhaps they should research their own words and realize that the definition of reproductive healthcare INCLUDES the health of the child being reproduced as well as the woman who carries that child. There is nothing in the definitions given earlier that mention one, or more, of the participants in the reproductive process ending up dead. Perhaps they just forgot about the child?

Now I must backtrack and try to determine  if, or where, I missed it. Here goes:

  • OK, go back and read the demands of those who loudly protest ‘for’ their Reproductive Health Care: check!
  • Once more, determine the Dictionary definition of “Reproductive Health Care : check!
  • Re-read those definitions once more just to make sure I did not screw up: check!

My goodness, am I now confused by their demands. It appears those loud voices actually ARE twisting their words to make it sound as though they’re concerned about Reproductive Health Care when they simply want the world to not only approve their demands for abortion on demand,  but get the public to pay all associated costs of the procedures through the Affordable Care Act (think our taxes).

If my last take on their words is correct, I am beginning to see the real purpose of these loud demands and it has more to do with ‘money’ (think VERY large amounts of money) than any presumed concerns for the women and children.

The poor misguided pregnant woman who truly believes she would be better off killing her own unborn child is told by those ‘experts’ who so adamantly want good ‘Reproductive Health Care’, that her mental health will be impaired by bringing an ‘unwanted’ child into the world, and she buys it based on…what? That lone statement? Does she seriously believe the ‘experts’ truly care about her mental health? Or is she just relieved that she will not have to assume any responsibility for what amounts to her lack of self-control when it comes to having unprotected sex? Is it possible that the average pregnant, unmarried woman who desires to end her pregnancy is that shallow or easily deceived? Or could it be that she has never given  any consideration to what happens to an aborted fetus, or an aborted near-full-term infant?

I stated that abortion, from the perspective of those who perform them and those who receive the baby parts after the procedures are complete, seems to be more about money than protecting the health of the mother and child. The status of the ‘remains of the aborted fetuses’ were not commonly known in years past but now with the uproar over abortion, reports of the status of these murdered beings are quite well-known, and the knowledge is horrifying.

There are now many reported, and confirmed, incidents of what the ‘abortion mills’ do with the bodies of these aborted human beings and there is not one that paints a pleasant picture. If the bodies are whole when removed from the uterus, which is occurring more frequently, they will not be for very long and will be dissected (think butchered) in horrific ways depending on what the “Baby Parts Procurement” system needs at any given time. And for those who think Planned Parenthood and the other baby butcher shops agree to donate these parts, think again. Huge price tags are assigned to them, depending on how valuable they are to those who purchase them.

Is it possible that the pregnant women who, for whatever reason seems to make sense to them, are unaware of what the aborted child experiences during the butchering process? Or are these persons so sociopathic that they really don’t care? Are they just as happy to enter the abortion clinic, allow the child to be ripped from their bodies and then spend a few days of recuperation so that they can repeat their previous “wash, rinse, repeat” behavior that led to an ‘unwanted pregnancy’? Could it be that they’re just happy to have a “right” to use the ‘abortion on demand’ process, paid for by someone else, to facilitate their sociopathic lifestyle? Are they unaware that their so-called ‘rights’ are truly evil in nature?

Reproductive Healthcare and Demanded Rights – Conclusion

Abortionist advocates, pregnant women claiming their evil desires as ‘rights’  want the ‘freedom’ to use sexual intercourse as a means of their personal entertainment instead of what God intended it to be. Sadly, it now appears there are a large number of people, both those desiring to end the life of their unborn infants, and those who, while not married or even pregnant, still shout about their ‘reproductive rights’ to the world, who would put aside any concern about the future of humanity, that future that God has planned for their babies, in exchange for their ability to engage in unprotected sex, from which the physical pleasure derived is very short-lived.

The abortion clinics, mostly funded by public taxes, are most certainly promoting abortions due to the huge amounts of money they realize when the butchered baby parts are bought from them. The main problem with the whole process is that the ‘rights’ they demand by allowing and legalizing the murder of unborn children would remove ALL rights that the Constitution affords to ALL citizens, namely those unborn human beings who have no means, certainly no voice, to protest the decisions made for them by others.

When God instituted marriage, between one man and one woman, the main purpose of human sexual intercourse, the ‘eros’ kind of love within the bounds of marriage, was ordained by Him to ‘reproduce’ and re-create the human race. No matter how many ‘genders’ the insane of the world claim exists, the fact is that, without the physical union of a biological man and a biological woman, the human race would die out within a hundred years.

It is truly bad enough that so many regard that brief sexual encounter as more important than the human life that would have resulted had it not been for that soul-less decision to murder their own child in the womb. Even worse is having a government that actively promotes the barbaric process and demands that we all pay for it. Perhaps the most despicable of all are those who are supposed to be the elected representatives of ALL the people, but who jump onto the abortion-on-demand protest wagon and try to convince the public they’re simply “concerned about the ‘rights of the people’” when, in most cases, they are simply trying to drum up votes for themselves and their parties. I would bet that most of these lowlife politicians are strong supporters of the groups who buy and sell the aborted baby parts.

A nation that approves, supports and promotes this behavior is extremely short-sighted and has very little, possibly NO future.

For those who have this short-sighted view, they may enjoy their perverse ‘rights’, and/or their filthy money, for a brief time, but there is STILL a God who will demand an explanation from each one as to why they chose so poorly.

May God help us as we try to counter this abominable and perverse behavior and may He have mercy on the souls of those who made, and are STILL making, the wrong decisions.

Blessings and Maranatha!

budaroo@twc.com

©Bud Hancock. All rights reserved.

The Real Gatekeepers Of The Internet thumbnail

The Real Gatekeepers Of The Internet

/in , , , /by

By Anand Ujjwal

I was literally talking to an empty room.

After high school (2013), I set to the internet because I thought that the mainstream press, schools, and colleges would never let me get my ideas out. I started a WordPress blog. I would share my content on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Experience Project. I thought I would bypass the gatekeepers of information and have the last laugh. In 2014, I joined Brian Johnson’s Entheos. Experience Project and Entheos shut down down the line. In 2016, I started posting on Instagram. In 2017, I joined LinkedIn. In 2019, I joined Medium. In 2020, I started this blog. And nothing came out of any of it. No one even knows I did all this. I got little to no views across all the platforms. I was literally talking to an empty room. Now, I have finally understood why.

The Internet is not free of gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are people who write the algorithms.

The algorithms do not look for quality but for engagement. You see a post not because it is good but because it has already been liked by others. This system soon turns into a popularity contest. Since average minds like average ideas, most of what you see trending on social media has to be average. This is why Marianne Williamson has 554K followers on Instagram while Taylor Swift has 210M. In comparison to M. Williamson, T. Swift posts nothing valuable. If you are above average, social media is bound to make you sick. Since quality content is liked by quality people only, who are less in number, you are unlikely to see posts from top scientists, poets, authors, and philosophers. Their content would never rise to the top. This system is very similar to democracy. The popular choice is seldom the wisest one.

Today, I have already deleted most of my social media accounts. I still have Instagram and LinkedIn but no longer post anything. I have accepted the reality that social media will never work for me. I am not what social media algorithms are looking for. I can’t post vain comments on other people’s stupid posts. I can’t like my own posts, nor can I aggressively like other people’s comments on my posts. I can’t make small talks in dm. I don’t care to search for hastags. I am not autistic. It is very similar to accepting that I would not succeed in college as a non-liberal.

Every system is designed to produce what it does, via the means of its algorithm. The algorithm at Harvard selects and promotes talent. TED’s algorithm promotes people who have great ideas. Social media algorithms promote vain, empty, and stupid people, which is why Kim Kardashian is more famous on social media than Jordan Peterson. Social media is not designed to promote thinkers and philosophers.

In other words, if your content is getting a lot of organic exposure on social media, it might just be mediocre. On LinkedIn, I almost never see good content, because good content does not get enough engagement from average minds. Being on LinkedIn is a very draining and exhausting experience because 9/10 posts are mediocre or stupid. I feel as if the number of followers a person has on LinkedIn is inversely proportional to his intelligence. I would personally never hire a writer/proofreader/editor from LinkedIn if his/her content is getting a lot of engagement. It might be a testament to his/her mediocrity.

Where will I be heading? I am looking for gatekeepers that look for quality, not clickability or popularity.

Internet does not and can not give everyone a voice. It can definitely give everyone the illusion that they have a voice. They have only as much voice as they have in an empty room — complete freedom to say whatever they want. No one’s listening though. Now, get off the internet.

The Real Gatekeepers Of The Internet II

The gatekeeping is not done at the production stage. It is done at the exposure stage. You are free to create whatever you want to. It is just that no one will ever get to see it unless you are already famous.

On LinkedIn, my last post had 408 views, 3 likes, 1 comment, and a share. LinkedIn already deplatformed the person who had commented. 5 people engaged out of 408 (1.2% engagement).

Another post had 322 views, 5 likes, 2 shares, and 4 comments. 11 people engaged out of 322 (3.4% engagement).

My view count has been in the same range since I got on Linkedin five years ago. On one of my posts, a commenter asked why I wasn’t getting more likes.

Exposure primarily depends on how many people you have in your network. It increases with engagement. Engagement depends on the product-market mix. Critical thinkers and intelligent people are more likely to engage with me than are average minds. But LinkedIn keeps removing intelligent people, so we are left with average minds and average content. At the same time, many refrain from interacting with me because their insecure bosses may be looking.

To increase initial exposure, most people add more users. Most LinkedIn users are so socially inept that they don’t even attach a personalized note with connection requests. New connections like to be added too so they can have exposure for their content. This is why most people are likely to accept your connection requests, including famous professors and business leaders, but they will likely never respond to your messages or anything you ever post. I have previously disconnected with some users because they did not reply to my messages.

I was and still am totally incapable of doing this. It is completely autistic to gather someone’s attention only to direct it to my posts. It is like feeding on his/her time and energy. I wonder how many feel as if influencers, brands, and famous people are using them as energy sources. No wonder people feel drained on social media. I never added strangers on social media until 2019. Most people in my online circles were folks I met in real life. In 2019, I started interacting more on LinkedIn, which led me to meet new people in the comment area. I started adding more people but still was not able to add the way others do. After 5 years on LinkedIn, I still have only 800 connections. Most LinkedIn experts advise having at least 1000 or 5000 connections. Imagine having vain relationships with 5000 people. You are bound to be depressed. There is no way you can keep up with 5000 people. I can’t keep up with 800. This is why I am leaving social media.

In a nutshell, I never got started on social media, because I was unable to add strangers and use their attention as energy for my machine. I can’t take advantage of people like that. I don’t even think that people should waste time on social media. None of my profiles ever took off. I never got the initial exposure, which is needed to get initial engagement. To this day, my Instagram posts and stories get very few views.

Growing on social media without meaninglessly adding people and posting vain comments on their posts is pretty much impossible. I would rather leave social media than do things that are vain and superficial. And no, you cannot have deep meaningful connections and conversations on social media. The internet is a virtual world. Virtual means not real. Nothing on the internet is real.

©Anand Ujjwal. All rights reserved.

We Need Fewer Rulers and More True Leaders thumbnail

We Need Fewer Rulers and More True Leaders

/in , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

“The beginning of wisdom,” said Confucius, “is to call things by their proper name.” 

With the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the British Commonwealth is entering a time of transition not seen in 70 years. What’s clearly mapped out is who will get the crown. What’s not so clear is the future of the monarchy as an institution.

At times like these, questions inevitably arise that are otherwise deemed too inconsequential to ask. What practical purpose does the monarchy fulfill, exactly? What are the powers of the head-of-state, and why should one person be given these powers?

But perhaps we should step back and ask a more preliminary question first: why should we care?

My gut response is to say we shouldn’t care. In fact, at first I wanted to ignore this story. I don’t think it’s healthy for a culture to be so fixated on political figures.

Having thought it through, however, I realized there’s an important point to be made here, and that this is the time to make it. After all, times of transition present opportunities to reflect and rethink things—not just the little things, but the big things too.

One of the primary points of discussion is of course whether there should even be a monarchy. Many people (rightly) point out that the institution no longer serves any practical purpose, and that it’s about time we finally did away with the vestigial elements that remain to this day. At the very least, the taxpayers could surely use the break.

But others say it still serves an important purpose. The monarch is a figurehead, they say, even if only ceremonially. Society needs a leader that we can look to and rally around, and the monarch fills that role.

Now, it’s true that society needs leaders. But monarchs are not so much leaders as they are rulers. They did not win willing followers like true leaders. They were simply born into a government-privileged position. The authority and status they have exists merely because of power. They did nothing to earn it.

For some, this is what makes democracy better than monarchy. Whereas monarchs are simply entitled to power, democratically-elected politicians must win the hearts of their people. They must champion the causes people care about and earn their followers and admirers.

But while it’s tempting to think democracy is a more genuine form of leadership, this isn’t really the case. Politicians in democracies are rulers, too. Though they may inspire some, they still exert power over others. A genuine leader simply invites others to follow them. A politician, on the other hand, demands compliance with their wishes. When the politician can’t persuade, they resort to force. They compel the hearts they cannot win.

That’s not leadership. That’s tyranny.

It’s also not entirely true to say that their supporters are followers in the genuine sense of the word. Quite often, people vote for a politician simply because the politician has promised them a share of the money extorted from taxpayers. To that extent, the voters are acting more as co-conspirators, working with the politicians to profit at the expense of their neighbors.

That’s not a leader. That’s a demagogue.

The distinction between leaders and rulers is subtle, but important. It’s important because it paints a more accurate picture of what politics is really about, one that reveals the true nature of the beast.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name,” said Confucius. When politicians get away with calling themselves our leaders, the euphemism makes their role sound lofty and inspiring. But when we call them what they really are, our rulers, the true nature of their position is laid bare. It’s akin to saying the emperor has no clothes. Except in this case, the con is the idea that the emperor is your friend, and the truth is that he is your master.

So yes, society absolutely needs leaders. But genuine leaders are those who set an example and inspire us to follow them. Do you see the difference? A leader has followers. A ruler has subjects. A leader inspires. A ruler commands. A leader wins loyalty. A ruler demands loyalty. A leader offers guidance. A ruler insists you follow his path. A leader sets an example. A ruler makes an example of those who refuse to obey.

So rather than obsessing over queens, kings, and presidents, let’s focus our time and attention on the genuine leaders in society, the people making a positive difference. Let’s not fixate on the Elizabeth IIs and the Charles IIIs of the world, or the Joe Bidens and Donald Trumps: rulers and demagogues who often bring out the worst in us and set us against each other. Instead, let’s pay more attention to the people—whether public figures or personal mentors—who bring out the best in us. Let’s look to entrepreneurial visionaries, creative trailblazers, philosophical, moral, and religious inspirations, and see what guidance they have to offer. Maybe they will inspire us to become true leaders ourselves.

Which would be a very good thing. The world could use a lot fewer rulers and a lot more genuine leaders.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

AUTHOR

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Dems Blame Sexism, Racism For Abrams’ Floundering Campaign thumbnail

Dems Blame Sexism, Racism For Abrams’ Floundering Campaign

/in , , , /by

By Discover The Networks

Democrats are “increasingly pessimistic” about voter fraud enthusiast Stacey Abrams’ prospects of unseating Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), according to a report from the leftist propaganda outlet New York Times.

“Some of Ms. Abrams’s supporters say her struggles are more rooted in sexism than any strategic misstep,” the Times reported. “She is running in the Deep South for an office that has long been elusive to women and candidates of color.”

“We have to work harder as women, as African American women. … [We] just have a harder time capturing the imagination as executives,” former Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said.

Democrat donor Steve Phillips dismissed Abrams’ stagnant poll numbers as “just sexism” and said her “identity as a black woman” generates enthusiasm for her candidacy but also “explains the depth of the resistance” to her.

Or maybe she’s just completely unlikeable.

“Stacey Abrams’ campaign isn’t connecting with Georgia voters, and people across the country and here in Georgia know it,” Kemp spokesman Tate Mitchell said.

Stacey Abrams

37 Known Connections

George Soros Backs Abrams’ 2022 Gubernatorial Bid with $1 Million Donation

In March 2022, multibillionaire George Soros, through Democracy PAC II — a federal political action committee which was created to promote Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections — donated $1 million to Abrams’ second campaign for Georgia governor. Moreover, Soros and his family members personally contributed approximately $60,000 directly to Abrams’ campaign.

Vast Majority of Donations to Abrams Come from Out-of-State

A July 14, 2022 Axios.com report stated that just over 14 percent of the money — $7 million out of nearly $50 million — which had been donated to Abrams’ gubernatorial campaign, had come from donors inside the state of Georgia. The $43 million in out-of-state contributions included $10 million from California, $3.6 million from New York, $2.5 million from Delaware, and $6.4 million from Washington, D.C.  Among the individual out-of-state funders of Abrams’ campaign were such notables as Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and Melinda Gates ($200,000). A key organizational donor was George Soros’ Democracy PAC — based in the District of Columbia — which delivered $2.5 million.

Of the $7 million in donations to Abrams that originated in Georgia, $1.5 million came from Fair Fight, an organization founded by Abrams herself.

To learn more about Stacey Abrams, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

LOL: Barack Says U.S. is ‘Better Off’ Since Biden Took Office

Mayra Flores Slams Opponent Gonzalez for ‘Racist Colors’

Walker Slams Sen. Warnock for Racially Dividing Americans

Report: Hillary Nonprofit Gave $75K to Defund the Police Group

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Where Does Your State Rank in Education Freedom? thumbnail

Where Does Your State Rank in Education Freedom?

/in , , , /by

By The Daily Signal

Florida ranks highest among the states in education freedom, while the District of Columbia trails behind all of them, according to a new “report card” from The Heritage Foundation.

The leading think tank’s 2022 Education Freedom Report Card, released Thursday, measures all 50 states and the District based on four broad categories: school choice, transparency, regulatory freedom, and spending. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

Rounding out the top five states after Florida in overall education freedom are Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and South Dakota.

The bottom five states, coming in just before the District in descending order, are Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

The authors write:

This report card sets a high bar for achieving and maintaining education freedom in the states. Our goal is that this annual ranking of states will not only inform parents and policymakers of what their states do well and where they need improvement, but that it will spur necessary and lasting reform.

The first of what will be a series of annual report cards from Heritage further divides categories into discrete factors that together determine the level of education freedom in each state.

Arizona ranks first in school choice as well as second in overall education freedom in Heritage’s analysis.

In July, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed into law a bill extending education savings accounts to all K-12 students. Eligible students may use these accounts to pay for almost any schooling option—including private and charter school tuition as well as homeschooling expenses.

Florida and Indiana are among 13 states that also expanded existing school choice programs. Other states passed new school choice policies.

A Real Clear Opinion poll found in June that 71% of Americans surveyed, an all-time high, said they support school choice.

But simply giving parents the freedom to choose their child’s private school isn’t enough, the authors of Heritage’s report write:

Although education choice is critical for the future of education freedom in this country—and some would argue that it is the reform that catalyzes all other necessary reforms in K–12 education today—it is one of many factors we assess in this report card.

As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, a contributor to the Education Freedom Report Card, previously has written:

When COVID-era remote learning began in 2020, parents gained an unprecedented view inside their students’ classrooms and their counties’ school board meetings. What they saw—fraudulent, woke propaganda disguised as curricula; union-driven closures; punitive mask and vaccine mandates; and the Democratic Party’s crackdown on objections to any of the above—has changed the moral and political foundations on which our education system rests.

With Americans’ trust in the public school system dropping by over a third in the past two years, according to Gallup Poll tracking, academic transparency is another growing priority.

New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts are among states that Heritage’s report card ranks low in transparency as well as in overall education freedom. These states, it says, have failed to bar or limit the teaching of critical race theory to K-12 students.

Florida ranks first for academic transparency, followed by Montana and South Dakota.

In March, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed into law a requirement that school districts share course materials and library books with parents.

“In Florida, our parents have every right to be involved in their child’s education. We are not going to let politicians deny parents the right to know what is being taught in our schools. I’m proud to sign this legislation that ensures curriculum transparency,” DeSantis said during a signing ceremony in March.

A month later, DeSantis signed another bill into law that bars Florida’s K-12 schools from teaching critical race theory, which views all interactions through the lens of race.

Florida ranks second for regulatory freedom, following Mississippi with its perfect score because of low barriers to teaching, no chief diversity officers in school districts, and no testing based on Common Core education standards.

Jay Greene, senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, has argued that chief diversity officers “may be best understood as political activists who articulate and enforce an ideological orthodoxy within school districts.”

Greene writes:

In recent decades, the role of parents in determining the education of children has increasingly been displaced by a professional class of experts. The fact that these experts have pushed schools through a revolving door of failed educational fads, from whole language reading instruction to open classrooms to Common Core, has done nothing to diminish their confidence. This time they have it right, we’re told, so parents just need to get on board and hand their students over.

Return on taxpayer investment in K-12 education also contributes to a state’s overall education freedom ranking on the report card.

The District of Columbia ranks among the lowest for return on investment. The nation’s capital spends more per pupil than any state, yet takes 48th place in students’ average reading scores.

Idaho ranks first place in return on investment, spending almost the least per student to get the greatest academic returns.

Below is a list of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, ranked highest to lowest for overall education freedom, according to Heritage’s report card:

  1. Florida
  2. Arizona
  3. Idaho
  4. Indiana
  5. South Dakota
  6. Mississippi
  7. West Virginia
  8. Montana
  9. Louisiana
  10. Tennessee
  11. Utah
  12. Texas
  13. Arkansas
  14. Georgia
  15. North Carolina
  16. Alabama
  17. Missouri
  18. Oklahoma
  19. New Hampshire
  20. Virginia
  21. Wyoming
  22. Iowa
  23. South Carolina
  24. Vermont
  25. Nevada
  26. Maine
  27. Michigan
  28. Nebraska
  29. California
  30. Kentucky
  31. Delaware
  32. Wisconsin
  33. Colorado
  34. Ohio
  35. North Dakota
  36. Kansas
  37. Pennsylvania
  38. New Mexico
  39. Minnesota
  40. Oregon
  41. Hawaii
  42. Illinois
  43. Washington
  44. Rhode Island
  45. Alaska
  46. Connecticut
  47. Massachusetts
  48. Maryland
  49. New Jersey
  50. New York
  51. District of Columbia

AUTHOR

Gillian Richards

Gillian Richards is a journalism fellow at The Daily Signal. Twitter: @gn_richards

RELATED ARTICLE: Back To School: If You Can’t Change Your School, Do These 5 Things Instead

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

Voting Booms in 5 States That Passed Election Reforms thumbnail

Voting Booms in 5 States That Passed Election Reforms

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Signal

A left-leaning New York think tank sounded a familiar warning about Arizona’s “voter suppression bills” being “dangerously close to becoming law.”

The Brennan Center for Justice added in a press release that Arizona was “taking center stage in the relent­less effort to rein in voter parti­cip­a­tion in the name of ‘elec­tion secur­ity.’” Pending bills, the think tank claimed, were “aimed at making voting by mail harder.”

That was in April 2021, before Arizona passed several reform measures that state legislators said they crafted to ensure secure and honest elections.

Little more than a year later, in August 2022, Arizona notched a record for high turnout in a primary election as 1.45 million voters participated, or 35.1% of those registered, surpassing the previous record in a 2000 primary by 7,000 ballots.

Voter turnout in Arizona for 2018, the last primary in a non-presidential election year, was 1.2 million voters, or 33.4%.

In 2021, Democrats and pundits attacked election reform laws enacted in 19 states as attempts at “voter suppression.” The five states that appeared to come under the most attack were Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa—all of which saw boosted voter turnout so far in 2022 compared to the 2018 primaries.

As a rule, non-presidential elections and primary elections attract lower turnout than presidential elections or general elections.

But voter turnout was significantly higher in the 2022 primaries in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona and nominally higher in Florida than in the comparable 2018 primaries.

So new election laws in these states did a lousy job of suppressing the vote, if that’s what Republican lawmakers designed them to do.

Florida’s new law, known as Senate Bill 90, is working its way through the courts. One litigant, Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, said the law “was clearly an anti-voter measure that raised barriers to voting with specific impacts on elderly voters, voters with disabilities, students, and communities of color.”

Florida, which also had an August primary, saw voter turnout go up slightly, Newsweek reported. The article quoted Andrea Mercado, executive director of the left-leaning advocacy group Florida Rising, as saying that overall 2022 turnout equaled that of 2018.

Voter turnout was expected to be lower because both parties had major competitive primaries in 2018 and only Democrats had state primaries this year. Still, Mercado said there is a “need to energize black communities to get out to the polls in November.”

After lititigation with varying decisions, most of Florida’s law was kept in place by courts pending the resolution of lawsuits. The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters, calling the law discriminatory.

In March 2021, Mark Stringer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, criticized Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, for signing an election reform bill.

“This law is nothing less than voter suppression, pure and simple,” the ACLU leader said.

However, Iowa logged its second-highest primary turnout on record in June with 356,000 voters, or 22.6%. The record from 1994 still stands. But the 2022 turnout marked a 123% increase from 2018, when primary turnout was 17%.

“The turnout should dispel the narrative that states are restricting voting,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told The Daily Signal, adding:

The left has made it an article of faith that there is systemic voter suppression. Some politicians are happy to do that to, one, demonize their opponents and, two, score points with their base. Ironically, they often use voter suppression as a turnout tool.

Among the laws that President Joe Biden took the most swipes were those of Georgia and Texas.

In May 2021, Biden said: “Texas legislators put forth a bill that joins Georgia and Florida in advancing a state law that attacks the sacred right to vote. It’s part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year.”

Texas held its primary election in March, one of the year’s earliest. Turnout was 17.7%, with 3 million ballots cast, up from  the 2018 primary turnout of 17.2% and 2.6 million ballots cast.

Texas election officials did reject about 18,000 mail-in ballots for failing to meet the new voter ID requirements. However, the state took action to educate voters on how to add an ID number to an absentee ballot in subsequent runoffs and special elections after the initial primary, Snead said.

The later elections in Texas had minimal problems, he said, while Georgia, which enacted the same voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots, reported virtually no problems.

Of the Georgia voting law, Biden had said: “It makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.”

Turnout for this year’s May primary in Georgia hit a record high with about 850,000 ballots cast—a 168% increase from the 2018 primary.

“The incredible turnout we have seen demonstrates once and for all that Georgia’s Election Integrity Act struck a good balance between the guardrails of access and security,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said in a prepared statement.

AUTHOR

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH

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

No, Slavery Did Not Make America Rich thumbnail

No, Slavery Did Not Make America Rich

/in , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The historical record of the post-war economy demonstrates slavery was neither a central driving force of, or economically necessary for, American economic dominance. 

In 1847, Karl Marx wrote that

Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry…cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.

As with most of his postulations concerning economics, Marx was proven wrong.

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery in 1865, historical data show there was a recession, but after that, post-war economic growth rates rivaled or surpassed the pre-war growth rates, and America continued on its path to becoming the number one political and economic superpower, ultimately superseding Great Britain (see Appendix Figure 1).

The historical record of the post-war economy, one would think, obviously demonstrated slavery was neither a central driving force of, or economically necessary for, American economic dominance, as Marx thought it was. And yet, somehow, even with the benefit of hindsight, there are many academics and media pundits still echoing Marx today.

For instance, in his essay published by The New York Times’ 1619 Project, Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond claims the institution of slavery “helped turn a poor, fledgling nation into a financial colossus.”

“The industrial revolution was based on cotton, produced primarily in the slave labor camps of the United States,” Noam Chomsky similarly stated in an interview with the Times. Both claims give the impression that slavery was essential for industrialization and/or American economic hegemony, which is untrue.

The Industrial Revolution paved the way for modern economic development and is widely regarded to have occurred between 1760 and 1830, starting in Great Britain and subsequently spreading to Europe and the US.

As depicted in Figure 1., raw cotton produced by African-American slaves did not become a significant import in the British economy until 1800, decades after the Industrial Revolution had already begun.

Although the British later imported large quantities of American cotton, economic historians Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode note that “the American South was a late-comer to world cotton markets,” and  “US cotton played no role in kick-starting the Industrial Revolution.”

Nor was the revolution sparked by Britain’s involvement with slavery more broadly, as David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman assessed that the contribution of British 18th-century slave systems to industrial growth was “not particularly large.”

There is also the theory that the cotton industry, dependent on slavery, triggered industrialization in the northern United States by facilitating the growth of textile industries. But as demonstrated by Kenneth L. Sokoloff, the Northern manufacturing sector was incredibly dynamic, and productivity growth was broad-based and in no way exclusive to cotton textiles.

Eric Holt has further elaborated, pointing out that

the vast literature on the industrial revolution that economic historians have produced shows that it originated in the creation and adoption of a wide range of technologies, such as the steam engine and coke blast furnace, which were not directly connected to textile trading networks.

The bodies of the enslaved served as America’s largest financial asset, and they were forced to maintain America’s most exported commodity… the profits from cotton propelled the US into a position as one of the leading economies in the world and made the South its most prosperous region.

This is the argument made by P.R. Lockhart of Vox.

While slavery was an important part of the antebellum economy, claims about its central role in the Industrial Revolution and in America’s rise to power via export-led growth are exaggerated.

Olmstead and Rhode have observed that although cotton exports comprised a tremendous share of total exports prior to the Civil War, they accounted for only around 5 percent of the nation’s overall gross domestic product, an important contribution but not the backbone of American economic development (see Appendix Figure 2).

One can certainly argue that slavery made the slaveholders and those connected to the cotton trade extremely wealthy in the short run, but the long-run impact of slavery on overall American economic development, particularly in the South, is undeniably and unequivocally negative.

As David Meyer of Brown University explains, in the pre-war South, “investments were heavily concentrated in slaves,” resulting in the failure “to build a deep and broad industrial infrastructure,” such as railroads, public education, and a centralized financial system.

Economic historians have repeatedly emphasized that slavery delayed Southern industrialization, giving the North a tremendous advantage in the Civil War.

Harvard economist Nathan Nunn has shown that across the Americas, the more dependent on slavery a nation was in 1750, the poorer it was in 2000 (see Appendix Figure 3.). He found the same relationship in the US. In 2000, states with more slaves in 1860 were poorer than states with fewer slaves and much poorer than the free Northern states (see Appendix Figure 4.)

According to Nunn,

looking either across countries within the Americas, or across states and counties within the U.S., one finds a strong significant negative relationship between past slave use and current income.

Slavery was an important part of the American economy for some time, but the reality is that it was completely unnecessary and stunted economic development, and it made Americans poorer even over 150 years later.

The historical and empirical evidence is in accordance with the conclusion of Olmstead and Rhode—that slavery was

a national tragedy that…inhibited economic growth over the long run and created social and racial divisions that still haunt the nation.

Figure 1. US share of British Cotton Imports over time

Figure 2. Cotton Exports and Gross Domestic Product

Figure 3. Partial correlation plot between the slave population as a share of the total population in 1750 and national income per capita in 2000 of countries of the Americas

Figure 4. Bivariate plot showing the relationship between the slave population as a share of the total population in 1860 and state incomes per capita in 2000

AUTHOR

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a Master of Business graduate student at the University of Rhode Island with a bachelor’s degree in Pharmaceutical Science and a minor in Economics.

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

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.