EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Intel-Linked ‘Service Centers’ In US Cities Used Cultural Events To Push Communist Party Propaganda thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese Intel-Linked ‘Service Centers’ In US Cities Used Cultural Events To Push Communist Party Propaganda

/in , , , , /by

By Philip Lenczycki

Overseas “service centers” set up in seven U.S. cities by a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intelligence arm have hosted cultural events featuring pro-CCP propaganda and performers tied to China’s government and military, according to Chinese government records and state-run media reports reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD) runs “Overseas Chinese Service Center” (OCSC) branches that operate out of U.S.-based nonprofits in seven U.S. cities, a recent DCNF investigation found. OCSCs were ostensibly set up to assist with official government duties, like reviewing passport applications, but they also host cultural events that often feature pro-CCP songs and performers tied to China’s military and propaganda departments, according to Chinese government records and state-run media reports.

Members of the U.S. Congress have attended these propaganda-filled cultural events, according to Chinese state-media reports and photos.

“These activities offer a perfect platform for the CCP to invite elected officials, whom they can then influence into endorsing the CCP’s narrative, and, in turn, influence broad masses of people,” Scott McGregor, a former Canadian military intelligence officer, told the DCNF.

The DCNF previously identified OCSC branches operating in San Francisco, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; Charlotte, North Carolina; Houston, Texas and Salt Lake City, Utah. The DCNF also reported that, during a 2018 trip to China, OCSC representatives met with officials from the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), which is China’s national police authority.

Republican Senators have asked the FBI and Justice Department to investigate the OCSCs. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey recently opened an investigation into the St. Louis OCSC, which he called a “possible CCP outpost.”

‘China Is Back’ 

Between 2014 and 2017, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office established 60 OCSCs around the world, including seven branches in U.S. cities, the DCNF previously reported.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office was under control of the CCP’s State Council until 2018 when it became part of UFWD, according to Chinese government documents and reports from China experts. The U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission, a federal entity, characterizes the UFWD as the CCP organ “responsible for coordinating [foreign and domestic] influence operations” as well as a “Chinese intelligence service.”

“United Front work is Beijing’s effort to enlist the Chinese diaspora and sympathetic residents of other countries to create sympathy for, and support of, the CCP’s goals,” Dr. June Teufel Dreyer, former commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, told the DCNF.

OCSC branches perform a variety of duties in support of China’s foreign ministry, ranging from processing Chinese passport and travel permit applications to so-called “consular protection” activities, the DCNF previously reported. However, OCSCs also regularly host Chinese cultural events, many of which have featured pro-CCP propaganda, according to a DCNF review of dozens of events.

OCSC-hosted cultural events — which include Lunar New Year, Mid-Autumn Festival and other Chinese national celebrations — often present traditional Chinese music and dance alongside pro-CCP propaganda songs.

For instance, the Salt Lake City OCSC held a 2022 Mid-Autumn Festival livestream event featuring lion dancers and traditional instrumental songs, according to its website. Performers at the event also sang and danced to “My People, My Country,” one of 100 songs selected by the CCP Propaganda Department to commemorate communist China’s 70th anniversary, according to the state-run People’s Daily.

In a 2020 speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping called the song part of a “surging current that sings an ode to New China and inspires us to work harder in the new era, filling us with boundless energy.”

In 2018, the Salt Lake City OCSC hosted a Lunar New Year event that included ethnic dance routines, martial artists and performers singing patriotic tunes, like “Love My China,” which was also on the Propaganda Department’s list.

The OCSC in St. Paul, Minnesota helped organize a 2019 event celebrating the founding of communist China and the establishing of U.S.-China diplomatic relations, according to a report from the nonprofit Alliance of Minnesota Chinese Organizations (AMCO). The All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese is also listed as a co-organizer for the event. The All-China Federation is part of the CCP’s united front, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

In addition to performances featuring acrobats and traditional Chinese instruments, a performer at the St. Paul event also sang “Ode To The Motherland,” another CCP Propaganda Department-approved song, according to People’s Daily. The state-run China News Service has called the song communist China’s second national anthem.

The song’s author boasted to Chinese state-controlled media that his lyrics depict “the power of justice, a blood vow to resist the shame of national subjugation roared in the middle of battle.”

Although they did not appear to attend the event, AMCO reports that Minnesota Democratic politicians Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Dean Phillips and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey all wrote letters praising the celebration.

Klobuchar, Phillips and Frey did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Service centers have also hosted events that included performances from art troupes affiliated with Chinese government propaganda departments, according to multiple Chinese state-run media reports.

In 2018, the Omaha OCSC sponsored a Lunar New Year celebration that featured Chinese opera performers from the state-owned Jiangsu Provincial Theatrical Troupe, according to Qiaowang, which is the news and propaganda arm of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

The Jiangsu theatrical troupe operates under the direction of the Jiangsu Propaganda Department, according to Chinese government documents.

The St. Paul OCSC and the Chongqing Propaganda Department have co-sponsored multiple events at the Mall of America in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, including events in 2019 and 2022, according to AMCO and Sohu.com. The 2022 event featured a performance from a dragon dance troupe managed by the Chongqing Propaganda Department, according to Sohu.com.

These performances came after the CCP Propaganda Department minister from Chongqing traveled to Minnesota in 2018 to sign a “mutual cooperation” agreement with the Mall of America and the St. Paul OCSC, according to the nonprofit AMCO. The details of the agreement are unknown.

In 2019, a vice president for Triple Five Group, which owns and operates the Mall of America, wrote a letter — which was posted on AMCO’s website — thanking the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, the head of the Chinese consulate in Chicago and several Chinese provincial government entities for their “firm support” of the mall’s Chinese New Year performances that year.

Neither the Mall of America nor the Triple Five Group responded to multiple requests for comment.

A Chinese Military Saxophonist Jams Out To U.S. Pop Songs

OCSC branches have also co-hosted performances with a related Overseas Chinese Affairs Office program called the Star Art Troupe.

Launched in 2014, the Star Art Troupe theatrical program is the “cultural flagship” of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office and aims to “meet the cultural needs of overseas Chinese” while providing a “window for foreigners to understand China,” according to the office’s website.

Chinese government and state-run media reports detail how, between 2014 and 2017, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office established seven Star Art Troupes in Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle and St. Paul.

U.S. OCSC have co-hosted events with Star Art Troupes, according to multiple Chinese state-run media reports. Some of these events featured performers from the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Academy of Art. The PLA is the Chinese military.

In October 2019, for instance, St. Paul’s OCSC and the local Star Art Troupe co-hosted an event commemorating the founding of communist China, according to AMCO. The event included a singer and musician from the PLA’s Academy of Art, according to Sohu.com.

Similarly, Houston’s Star Art Troupe also included a dancer who attended the PLA’s Academy of Art, according to the Oriental Arts Education Center (OAEC), though it’s unclear if the dancer remains at the center. OAEC, which hosts the art troupe, has co-hosted events with Houston’s Chinese Civic Center, which houses the Houston OCSC.

In September 2015, Houston’s Chinese Civic Center sold tickets for a public event in Stafford, Texas, celebrating communist China’s founding that was co-hosted by Houston’s Star Art Troupe, according to the local Chinese Student Association. During the event, the lead saxophonist for the PLA’s Central Military Band played the pop hit “My Heart Will Go On,” the association reported.

That same month, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office invited the head of Houston’s Star Art Troupe to come to China to attend a military parade at Tiananmen Square commemorating the defeat of Imperial Japan, according to OAEC.

While in Beijing, the head of Houston’s Star Art Troupe met with the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office’s chief propagandist to discuss “how the modern mission of overseas cultural disseminators is to use cultural confidence to demonstrate Chinese people’s profound heritage and love of peace in order to defend the peaceful image of China,” according to OAEC.

OAEC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“Americans should be very wary of cultural events hosted by organizations affiliated with the UFWD — and especially the MPS — because they are used to covertly hide the CCP’s true intent,” Ina Mitchell, Canadian investigative reporter and co-author of “The Mosaic Effect,” told the DCNF.

The DCNF reached out to all seven nonprofits housing OCSCs by email and phone. Only two of the nonprofits responded.

The Nebraska Chinese Association, which houses the Omaha OCSC, claimed its cultural events “strive to cultivate understandings between Chinese and American culture” and denied any relationship with the Chinese government.

A man who identified himself as a “founding member” of the Charlotte “Chinese service center” told the DCNF by phone that his organization was “not related to any government agency.” He directed the DCNF to review the group’s website.

The exterior of the Chinese Civic Center in Houston shows the emblem of the Overseas Chinese Service Center. [Screenshot/YouTube/TJ工作室]

‘Feel Good Sentiments’

Several members of Congress have attended OCSC-sponsored cultural events, according to multiple Chinese state-run media reports.

In January 2023, St. Paul’s OCSC co-hosted another Lunar New Year event at the Mall of America. During the event, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith delivered a speech praising her state for welcoming immigrants, the CCP-controlled Qiaowang and CBS News reported.

Smith’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Sen. Klobuchar also gave a video speech thanking an OCSC representative for promoting “the cultural heritage of Chinese Americans,” according to AMCO’s YouTube channel.

Performers at the January 2023 event sang the CCP Propaganda Department-approved song “Why Are The Flowers So Red?” The song’s lyrics celebrate “the heroic frontier guards in Northwest China’s Xinjiang,” according to the PLA’s English website.

The song’s lyrics include the line: “Why are the flowers so red? They’re watered with the blood of youth.”

Rep. Phillips has also attended St. Paul OCSC events co-sponsored by the Chongqing Propaganda Department, according to multiple reports.

In September 2022, Phillips attended the St. Paul OCSC’s Mid-Autumn Festival event at the Mall of America, according to iChongqing, a Chinese state-run media outlet. During the event, Phillips, the head of China’s Chicago consulate and St. Paul OCSC members painted eyes on a large dragon puppet, which was then used in a performance by a dragon dance troupe managed by the Chongqing Propaganda Department, photos from a state-run media outlet show.

“Cultural events create feel good sentiments — ‘how could a civilization that produced such fantastic dance, musical performances, acrobats, cuisine possibly have militant intentions?’” Dr. Dreyer told the DCNF.

Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon has also attended events hosted by the Omaha OCSC, including a 2018 Lunar New Year event that featured the state-controlled Jiangsu Provincial Theatrical Troupe, according to Qiaowang.

Bacon’s spokesperson told the DCNF that individuals from the Nebraska Chinese Association “cherish their Chinese heritage” and “have a deep disdain for the Communist government and have expressed love and patriotism for the United States.” Bacon’s spokesperson added that local law enforcement had never “highlighted any concerns to us in the past” about the organization.

However, after the DCNF reported on the Omaha OCSC’s connection to the CCP’s United Front, Bacon said he contacted the FBI about the service center.

“Allegations that the Chinese Communist Government is operating an illegal organization to monitor and intimidate Chinese students and visitors in Omaha are obviously very alarming and we want answers from the FBI,” Bacon said.

In 2022, the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center warned that CCP influence operations in the U.S. have now placed state and local officials “on the “front lines of national security.” While these operations may vary in their execution, ultimately, they all aim to coopt American lawmakers as Beijing’s proxies, whether wittingly or unwittingly, DNI cautioned.

“These associations have been bridges that Americans naively saw as just cultural and mutually beneficial,” Steve Yates, former deputy national security adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney, told the DCNF. “The CCP has always used every organization as a vehicle to monitor, and, in many cases, control their ethnic affiliates and through them the influencers in the communities in which their ethnic compatriots reside.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Simple Solution in Government Intrusion Case thumbnail

Simple Solution in Government Intrusion Case

/in , , , /by

By Bruce Bialosky

Ronald Reagan once said, “they say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” We have exactly that — a simple solution to the government’s intrusion into communication with social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram etc.

As I am sure you are aware there was an earthquake on July 4th. In an order filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Federal Judge Terry Doughty put a halt to the federal government and the Biden Administration from communicating with social media companies to restrict commentary on the platforms.

The ruling by Doughty is a tour de force on free speech and the first amendment. The 155 pages are a history lesson and should be taught in every high school as the defense of our most essential freedom, one that many people in countries with which we are allied do not enjoy.

Doughty mentions eight different areas where the government could still assert itself. They break down into three categories:

1. Criminal activities – Everyone would argue (except criminals) that the social media sites should work with governmental entities to address any criminal activities on their sites.

2. National Security Issues – Not too many people would argue that if nefarious parties are using the sites to communicate about matters that involve actual national security issues (like what happened on 9/11), the social media sites should not work with the FBI and CIA.

3. MisinformationI-if there is largely consensus about the first two points, we must focus on the third point. This is the heart of the matter that needs to be addressed. The judge cites as one of his points that the government should, “Inform social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures.” This gets to where there is a solution.

If the government believes there is misinformation about voting they should point it out in their own postings. The media companies may even direct their members to these postings. The government should not be working behind the scenes with media companies to ban people who post “incorrect” information. This leads to the proverbial “slippery slope.”

The government is nefariously communicating with media companies and “suggesting” certain information be banned. This information does not fall into the first two categories. It falls into the area of “misinformation” which is just a code word for speech restriction and violation of the first amendment. When the President’s people call you up and say, “We don’t think Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), should be allowed to post their thoughts about COVID on your site,” how many people are going to resist that pressure? Not many. It is not a suggestion — it is a demand.

It just so happens that these two gentlemen were correct. The facemasks were a fraud, natural immunity was more effective than the COVID shots, and the disease did come from the lab in Wuhan. But these issues are just “canaries in the coal mine.”

The solution is simple. There are matters in the first two categories with which the government and social media companies can work. Other than that, it is hands off. They can post what they believe to be the truth and others can post what they believe to be the truth. Absolutely no communication between government workers from any department with the staff of any media companies.

The essence of the First Amendment is that Americans need to be treated as grownups and make their own decisions. Government wonks can take their best shot with information and private people can do the same. And, certainly, no more lies that the government is only making “suggestions.”

Here is a possible resolution to this matter. As you know, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act has allowed these social media operators to control their own methods of “moderation” of their content. It is badly outdated as few anticipated the explosion of the internet or the effects of social media. The Democrats refuse to consider updating the act because currently the suppression of speech has principally been against Republicans and their allies.

Let’s say this gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they rule against the government and their secret communications suppressing free speech. We will see the Democrats do a 180 degree turn on the issue of revising Section 230. Their instinctive policy nature is to control matters at the federal level through governmental mandate. In this instance, however, getting all the advantages from using the federal government to coerce social media without revising the law has prompted them to keep their hands off legislation to treat social media like legacy media. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of freedom of speech, you will see them calling for regulation of these social media sites faster than you can blink.

The Democrats are playing a dangerous game by using governmental entities to do their dirty work suppressing free speech. It can bring one of two results. It can boomerang against them, or it can cause a revolt. Neither action would be acceptable. This should skip to the final and proper step and regulate the social media companies like other media companies and thus protect free speech and the First Amendment.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Legislature Forms Committee Looking Into ASU Free Speech Concerns thumbnail

Legislature Forms Committee Looking Into ASU Free Speech Concerns

/in , , , , /by

By Cameron Arcand

Following a free speech controversy at Arizona State University, the state Legislature is forming a new joint committee to examine “freedom of expression” in the state’s public universities.

ASU shut down the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development after its main donor, Tom Lewis, pulled funding after a controversial event featuring conservative personalities Charlie Kirk and Dennis Prager. The former executive director, Ann Atkinson, said in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” that she was fired by the university for organizing the event. A committee hearing scheduled for July 18 will feature testimony from Atkinson and Prager, as well as Dr. Owen Anderson and radio host Seth Leibsohn.

Tom Lewis himself said that the backlash from faculty protesting the conservative speakers was the reason he felt compelled to terminate funding to the center, which was part of Barrett, The Honors College.

“Because these were mostly conservative speakers, we expected some opposition, but I was shocked and disappointed by the alarming and outright hostility demonstrated by the Barrett faculty and administration toward these speakers,” Tom Lewis himself said in a statement. “Instead of sponsoring this event with a spirit of cooperation and respect for free speech, Barrett faculty and staff exposed the radical ideology that now apparently dominates the college. After seeing this level of left-wing hostility and activism, I no longer had any confidence in Barrett to adhere to the terms of our gift, and made the decision to terminate our agreement, effective June 30, 2023.”

State Sen. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, and state Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, are co-chairing the committee, and Nguyen tweeted Thursday that he’s “very concerned” about the situation.

“[Arizona’s] public universities must be unfettered bastions of free speech & expression,” he said. “I’m very concerned to see admins terminated after coordinating to have conservatives speak on campus. I look [forward] to hearing from [university] leadership as to why this happened.”

The school currently holds a “green light” rating from the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, which measures free expression rights at universities, and the group called Atkinson’s story “troubling” before learning that the donor pulled the funding himself.

“FIRE sees no #1A problem with such a closure, provided there are genuine funding concerns. But, because schools often point to viewpoint-neutral reasons to justify viewpoint-based censorship, we’ll continue to monitor closely,” the organization tweeted on June 21.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Britain’s Shakespearean Constitution thumbnail

Britain’s Shakespearean Constitution

/in , , , /by

By Adam Tomkins

When teaching constitutional law in the United Kingdom, one of the first challenges is to reflect on where the British constitution gets its authority. We say, for example, that it is not merely a rule that the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons, but a constitutional rule. Likewise, we say that the King may do nothing except on ministerial advice—normally, prime ministerial advice—and that this is a rule of the constitution. We say these things because we wish to deepen and entrench the status of such rules. We regard them as fundamental, and we reach for the rhetoric of the constitution to signify this sense of fundamentality.

Of course, in the United Kingdom, we have no document or codified text we can point to as authority for our proposition that the Prime Minister must be a member of the Commons or that the King may act only on the advice of ministers. Like New Zealand’s, the British constitution is “unwritten.” That is an inapt term. Almost all of the UK’s constitution is written down, somewhere. But it is not codified. There is no single authoritative text. 

If the British constitution does not obtain its authority from a governing text, where does it obtain its authority from? Of late, it has become fashionable in British law schools to imagine that the constitution is based on (and obtains its authority from) a number of fundamental principles. Some say that parliamentary accountability is a fundamental principle; some say democracy is. Such commentators go on to say these principles explain why we have rules such as the two I’m using as examples. They tell us it is important that the prime minister is a member of the House of Commons because it is to the House of Commons that the PM must discharge his (or her) constitutional obligations, subjecting himself to parliamentary accountability.

That is why we have Prime Minister’s Questions every week, and so on. Likewise, it is important that the King understands that, in today’s constitutional order, the forces of monarchy have been well and truly subjected to those of democracy. The King remains head of state but he is unelected. He owes his position to an accident of birth, not to the ballot box, but it is the latter that rules. Ministers are accountable to the representatives of the people. Thus the King must act only and always on ministerial advice: the principle of democracy insists upon it. 

This style of constitutional reasoning may seem logical. It may appear to be rational—grounded in reason and, as such, consistent with the Enlightenment principles upon which all modern constitutionalism is said to be based.

And yet I am entirely unpersuaded by it. One may admire this style of constitutional reasoning as a matter of elegance, but does it hold up? Does it not, indeed, beg the rather obvious question: where do the principles come from, and who decides (in the context of an uncodified constitution) what “counts” as a fundamental constitutional principle and what does not? Why is parliamentary accountability a constitutional principle and how did it become one? On whose authority has democracy become a trump card, subjecting even the King himself to the will of the people?

The many centuries of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish history make for an overwhelming canvas. No one could master it all, so we have to pick and choose—even when we only wish to grasp the historical foundations of our law.

These questions—and many more like them—are answerable. But, in the end, they are answerable not on the basis of any claim to a higher authority or abstract principle. They are answerable only by reference to history. The British constitution does not obtain its authority from a written legal text. Instead, it owes its authority to the past—to its history. The reason why ministers, from the PM down, are accountable to the House of Commons owes its explanation to no philosophy of modern constitutionalism (after all, there is no equivalent in the US Constitution). Rather, it owes its explanation, both as a descriptive fact and as a norm of constitutional behaviour, to history. It is because Parliament insisted upon it, first on the battlefields of the Civil Wars of the 1640s and thereafter in legislation. Likewise, the reason why the King may act only on ministerial advice and may not use his undoubted prerogative powers to thwart or to run counter to what ministers want is because, by the end of the seventeenth century, Parliament had won for itself not only the right to hold the Crown’s ministers to account, but the right to determine the powers of the Crown itself and, if necessary (as it was in 1688), to remove the Crown from the incumbent’s head and place it on someone else’s instead. None of this can be readily explained as a matter of constitutional rationality, reason, or principle. These are binding and genuinely fundamental rules of constitutional behaviour in the United Kingdom—and they are so because our history demands it.

The United Kingdom is not an especially old country. In its current form, it dates only from the 1920s, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But the UK is composed of four exceptionally old nations, all of which have constitutional histories that reach back into the deep past. England is the dominant partner (it has about 85% of the UK’s population and is responsible for about the same share of the UK’s GDP), although Scottish, Welsh, and Irish history have each made decisive contributions to the UK’s interweaving story. The many centuries of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish history make for an overwhelming canvas. No one could master it all, so we have to pick and choose—even when we only wish to grasp the historical foundations of our law. Mostly, we venture no further back than the Civil Wars of the 1640s and the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89, which finally resolved the constitutional disagreements that had helped to fuel them. Occasionally, we may mention Magna Carta, which dates from 1215, but even then we tend to do so anachronistically, and, certainly, few ever say anything about the four centuries which separate it from the constitutional conflicts of the seventeenth century. 

This is a shame, as there is much that can usefully be learned about today’s constitution from the medieval political orders of the Middle Ages. One could start with Henry de Bracton, for example, and his thirteenth-century writings on kingship. Or with Sir John Fortescue’s De Laudibus Legum Angliae, written in the 1470s as a handbook for Edward IV but not published until the 1540s (well into the reign of Henry VIII). Or one could read Sir Thomas Smith’s brilliant Elizabethan overview of Tudor government, De Republica Anglorum, first published in 1583. All contain insights about the nature of rulership and government which remain pertinent to this day. Fortescue, for example, is as compelling as Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries are, written in the 1760s, that the genius of the English constitution is its mixing together of elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Blackstone was adamant that it was the mixed nature of the constitution that had given England her stability. But he was hardly the first great English jurist to alight upon this theme. Fortescue beat him to it by some three hundred years.

I confess that I do not teach Bracton, Fortescue, or Sir Thomas Smith to my constitutional law students. Perhaps I should. Were I to try to convey a sense of the ongoing importance of today’s British constitution of the late Middle Ages, I would be inclined to reach first for Shakespeare. In particular, I would cite his great tetralogy of history plays, Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V. These are not only Shakespeare’s best histories: they are among the finest of all his plays. Richard II is a story of weak and conflicted rulership, when the ruler doubts himself and crumples under the weight of leadership. Henry IV is a story both of guilt (aka, the burden of taking responsibility for the means by which you have obtained power) and of the public/private split, asking us to reflect on the moral fibre of our putative leaders, as reflected not only in their public action but also in their private behaviour.

The dominant figure in the first story is of course the king, who usurped Richard’s Crown to become Henry IV; the dominant figure in the second is his son (and heir) Hal, who will rise to become Henry V. The closing of the quartet, Henry V, is a study in leadership, principally but not only in war. It is a case study of how to take men with you, how to lead from the front knowing that the loyalty of those behind you is not only publicly displayed but—far more important, then as now—inwardly felt. The Chorus puts it thus, at the opening of Act 4:

For forth he goes and visits all his host.
Bids them good morrow with a modest smile
And calls them brothers, friends, and countrymen. 
Upon his royal face there is no note
How dread an army hath enrounded him …
But freshly looks and overbears attaint
With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty.
That every wretch, pining and pale before,
Beholding him, plucks comfort from his looks.
A largess universal, like the sun,
His liberal eye doth give to everyone,
Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all
Behold, as may unworthiness define.
A little touch of Harry in the night.

Henry is about to lead his troops in war. Outnumbered by the “confident and over-lusty” French, they fear decimation. But the king instead leads them to victory, and to glory.

Of the numerous constitutional insights contained within these majestic and brilliant plays, let me highlight just two, as illustrations of how Shakespeare can be used to illuminate aspects of constitutional law. The first concerns the identity of the state. What is it, this thing, which is constituted by the constitution? This is a question that, in the Anglo-American mainstream, lawyers have not spent enough time worrying about. (It is quite different in the French tradition, where la pouvoir constituant has been a fixation of constitutional theorists since at least the Abbé Sieyès). Perhaps now, as the rise of populism challenges us to consider where the limits should be set to the idea of popular sovereignty, we are belatedly coming around to the realisation that it is not just constituted power we should worry about, but constituent power too. Who has the authority to constitute the state—and what is the state, anyway? These are the foundational concerns of Richard II and they are most powerfully expressed in a speech, loaded with pathos, of the king himself (the speech, “Of comfort no man speak”, in Act 3, scene 2).

It isn’t popular sovereignty on which Richard ruminates, but his own supposed sovereignty—the sovereignty, that is, which literally embodies the state. The physical embodiment of the state is Richard himself. He realises his body is at once his own (as a man) and the manifestation of the state (as king). It is no accident that Ernst Kantorowicz, in his great study of what he called “medieval political theology,” The King’s Two Bodies (1957), devoted an entire chapter of his analysis to Shakespeare’s Richard II. Richard instructs his companions to:

… sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings,
How some have been deposed, some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed,
Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed …

“All murdered,” he blasts. He is inviting his companions (and by extension us) to reflect not only on what it means for the king to die, but what it means for the state. It is worth recalling that Shakespeare is writing at a time when it was treason—a capital offence, no less—to imagine the king’s death. The passing of the monarch risked the passing of the body politic itself. It was a moment of extreme frailty and fragility. And yet, as Richard laments, it is wired into the system (a feature, not a bug). All the king is granted is “a breath, a little scene ǀ To monarchise, be feared, and kill with looks”. Death is never far away. It is “vain conceit” to imagine that the king’s “flesh which walls about our life ǀ Were brass impregnable.” All it takes for death to bore through the king’s flesh—his castle wall—is “a little pin … and farewell king.” The truth, Richard concedes, is that his subjects:

have but mistook me all this while,
I live with bread like you, feel want, 
Taste grief, need friends.

“Subjected thus,” he asks, “How can you say to me I am a king?” What goes for the king as sovereign goes likewise for any other body making a claim to sovereignty, even the people themselves. Who are we, to think we have the power to lay down the law, the law of the constitution, no less? Are we not mere flesh, living with bread, feeling want, tasting grief, and needing friends? How do we square our own mortal, quotidian ordinariness with the exceptional power we arrogate to ourselves to exercise popular sovereignty? Richard II helps us begin to articulate these questions in a way few other texts can approach.

My second example of contemporary constitutional insight drawn from Shakespeare comes from the end of Henry IV Part 2. Upon his father’s demise, Hal has acceded to the throne—he is now King Henry V. He meets two older men, each very different from the other, both of whom have played an avuncular role in his life. One is Falstaff, Hal’s great lord of misrule. Sir John is clearly expecting preferment but instead is unceremoniously dumped—banished from court with the cutting words, “I know thee not, old man.”

The other is the late king’s Lord Chief Justice who, we are told, had once had Hal arrested and detained for breach of the peace. The judge fears—indeed, he knows—that the new king “loves [him] not” (Act 5, scene 1). He is expecting, at best, to be dismissed. But the new king surprises him by retaining him in office, telling him to:

… still bear the balance and the sword;
And I do wish your honours may increase
Till you do live to see a son of mine
Offend you and obey you as I did. 
So shall I live to speak my father’s words;
“Happy am I that I have a man so bold
That dares do justice on my proper son,
And not less happy having such a son
That would deliver up his greatness so
Into the hands of Justice.” You did commit me,
For which I do commit into your hand
Th’unstainèd sword that you have used to bear,
With this remembrance: that you use the same
With the like bold, just, and impartial spirit
As you have done ‘gainst me. There is my hand.
You shall be as a father to my youth;
My voice shall sound as you do prompt mine ear,
And I will stoop and humble my intents
To your well-practised wise directions.

Henry may be a new king, and he may have acceded to the throne at a tender age (he was in his mid-20s), but he is experienced enough to appreciate that he needs honest counsel, impartial justice, and an independent judiciary. That the rule of law must be administered alike to one and all, irrespective of status, is a given of modern constitutionalism, as is the fact that the realisation of this aspiration demands judges who are independent of government. Neither the “rule of law” nor the “separation of powers” were terms of constitutional art in Shakespeare’s day (the former we owe principally to Dicey; the latter to Montesquieu and Madison). Both are core maxims of the modern constitution, and both are proudly and defiantly on display in Henry IV Part 2, this poignant scene made all the more powerful by its contrast with the banishment of “old Jack Falstaff.”

TAKE ACTION

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

Biden’s DOJ Will Trigger A Major Crisis If Trump Is Indicted For Jan. 6 thumbnail

Biden’s DOJ Will Trigger A Major Crisis If Trump Is Indicted For Jan. 6

/in , , , , /by

By John Daniel Davidson

The news that President Joe Biden’s Justice Department might soon indict and arrest former President Donald Trump over the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol should terrify all Americans, regardless of their political beliefs.

Put bluntly, if Biden’s DOJ arrests Trump, the president’s main political rival heading into the 2024 election, it will trigger a political and electoral crisis unlike any America has ever faced. It’s not too much to say that such a move would not only imperil the upcoming presidential election but the republic itself. Jailing political rivals is what happens in tinpot dictatorships like Nicaragua, where President Daniel Ortega’s political rivals often find themselves arrested and imprisoned on charges of treason

Now it appears it could happen here. On Tuesday [July 20], Trump said he had received a letter informing him he is a target of the federal criminal investigation of Jan. 6 being led by Special Counsel Jack Smith. In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump explained he was given the letter on Sunday and that Smith gave him just four days to report to the grand jury, “which almost always means an Arrest and Indictment,” Trump wrote.

This is the second target letter Trump has received from Smith. The first one came in June, in connection with the unprecedented FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home last year over classified documents. Days later, Trump was charged with dozens of criminal counts relating to seven different federal laws governing the handling of classified material. (Recall that classified documents, some of them top secret and dating back at least six years, were also found in President Joe Biden’s garage and at his “think tank” in Washington, D.C., last November through January. Rest assured Biden will never be indicted over it.)

Trump and others have rightly denounced this as the weaponization of federal law enforcement and the criminalization of political differences. It’s also just a naked attempt to rig the 2024 election in Biden’s favor. As Tucker Carlson has said, “They’re trying to take Trump out before you can vote for him, and that should upset you more than anything that’s happened in American politics in your lifetime.”

That’s not an overstatement. If this scheme works, if Biden’s DOJ succeeds in taking Trump out ahead of 2024 on bogus charges related to Jan. 6, it’s hard to see how we can ever have a normal election again in this country, how the outcome of any future election will be seen as legitimatate

Forget about the stalwart Trump voters who claim 2020 was stolen. If Biden’s DOJ throws Trump in prison, Ortega-style, for a crime the U.S. Senate already acquitted him of, there’ll be a whole new constituency of voters who will claim, rightly, that 2024 has been preemptively stolen.

Indeed, Biden’s Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland might be badly overplaying its hand here, unintentionally swelling the ranks of Americans who might not love Trump but absolutely loathe the way federal law enforcement has been deployed against him and his supporters from the moment he won office in 2016.

Between the Russia-collusion hoax, two bogus impeachments, and a litany of outrageous indictments, Trump’s enemies in Washington are earning him sympathy from ordinary American people, who can recognize injustice and abuse of power when they see it.

They can also recognize what by now is obvious. There are two standards of justice in America: one for establishment insiders like Biden and his corrupt family, and one for outsider politicians like Trump that dissent from the permanent regime in Washington and try to disrupt it.

Maybe that doesn’t matter to Biden and Garland and those in power. Maybe they feel like, after 2020, they don’t even need to be seen as legitimate by half the country in order to rule, and they’re willing to do anything to defeat Trump. But they’re kidding themselves if they think they can simply take Trump out by arresting and indicting him, and then move onward into the 2024 cycle as if everything is fine.

Their weaponization of federal law enforcement, if it continues, is going to delegitimize the 2024 election before a single ballot is cast. And at that point, we’re all going to have a huge problem on our hands.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Weekend Read: Get Woke, Go Broke? thumbnail

Weekend Read: Get Woke, Go Broke?

/in , , , , /by

By James Hartley

“Woke Capitalism is a growing and troubling dimension of contemporary economic and political life, especially among the mammoth multinational corporations that dominate so many aspects of our lives.” Such laments have become omnipresent in conservative circles. It has become hard to keep up with the Outrage of the Day. Woke Corporations have adopted the norms of the Left’s pet programs, both in advertising and public declarations, as well as in adopting ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) guidelines, leaving conservatives fuming.

What is surprising is that the opening quotation was not written by a conservative. It is the assessment of Carl Rhodes in Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy. Rhodes, a Professor of Organization Studies at the University of Technology Sydney, is a very proud progressive. While he hates Woke Capitalism every bit as much as all those “right-wing reactionaries,” he goes to great lengths to reassure the reader on nearly every page that he is not one of them.

Have we finally found a place where conservatives and progressives can agree? Is this the beginning of the end of the Culture War? Consider the following pair of quotations. The first is from Mark Hemingway in Law and Liberty. The second is Rhodes.

[It] seems obvious that capitalism, and the necessary regulation of it, works best when we’re all clear where self-interest ends and social responsibility begins. “Woke capitalism” is clearly blurring that line. If you think obscenely rich CEOs can be trusted to tell the average voter what’s in their best interest on toxic masculinity, gay rights, religious freedom, or any almost any other controversial issue, well, you’ll probably buy anything else they happen to be selling.

[T]he real danger of woke capitalism is not that it will weaken the capitalist system, but rather that it will further cement the concentration of political power among a corporate elite …[which is] a threat to a progressive politics that dares to retain hope in the possibility of equality, liberty, and social solidarity.

Note that while the language is different, both passages are criticizing exactly the same thing. What right do wealthy CEOs have to aggrandize themselves beyond the economic sphere into being the leading voices in addressing social ills?

In one sense, Rhodes’ analysis of the problem could come straight out of Robert Novak’s The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, which perceptively described a tripartite division of power. First, there is the political order, a democratically elected set of representatives; second, the economic order, a free-market system with profit-seeking businesses; and third, the moral-cultural order, with churches, universities, and media outlets vying for influence in the marketplace of ideas. Novak argues forcefully that this division of power results in a healthier society than one in which there is a unitary source of power.

Framed in Novak’s terms, the problem with Woke Capitalism is that it causes the system itself to break down. As Rhodes puts it:

Woke capitalism does not respect the boundaries. It involves second-sector organizations taking over the responsibilities of the other two. The issue with this is that while the state and the third sector are not motivated by profit, the second sector, by definition, is. When this profit motive bleeds into the activities of the other two sectors, things change.

Rhodes has little patience for progressives who are happy to see corporate leaders embracing their favored causes. Those who celebrate Woke Capitalism are “naive, if not gullible.”

Why is Woke Capitalism a Problem?

On the criterion of rhetorical ferocity directed at corporations adopting progressive political causes, Rhodes yields nothing to the conservative critics he so clearly despises. He fully agrees with conservatives that corporations are exceeding their proper bounds in society. But, before we celebrate this unification of the Left and the Right, we should note there is a fundamental difference in the critiques. In the two-word phrase “Woke Capitalism,” which word is the problematic one?

For conservatives, the problem is “Woke.” As Milton Friedman famously put it, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” It is the manager’s job to act in accordance with the wishes of the shareholders, whose desires “generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” The problem with Woke Capitalism is CEOs who have decided to pursue other goals, regardless of, or in some cases to the detriment of, the profitability of the company. Particularly galling to conservatives is that corporations seem to be embracing every obsession of the Left.

Rhodes, on the other hand, believes the problem with Woke Capitalism is “Capitalism.” The problem is not that corporations are voicing agreement with causes Rhodes embraces. The real problem is that corporations have not yet committed themselves to a suicide pact.

Consider some of the examples Rhodes discusses at length. Jeff Bezos committed $10 billion to fight climate change. He also battled with Trump over immigration. He won a Human Rights Campaign award for his support of same-sex marriage. After noting all these things, Rhodes then excoriates Bezos. The foremost problem: Amazon, the firm which generated so much wealth for Bezos, actively manages its financial affairs to minimize the taxes it pays. As Rhodes notes, they are not doing anything illegal in avoiding taxes. They are just being immoral. “We need to remember here that paying tax is the main way that corporations can contribute to society.” You might have thought that corporations contributed to society by paying employees and providing goods and services to customers, but those contributions are nothing compared to providing tax revenue to the government.

The book is filled with examples in the same vein. Sure, Nike embraced Colin Kaepernick after his kneeling during the national anthem at NFL games. This was not an isolated event. Nike embraced the women’s movement in the 1970s and Rhodes notes, “Connecting their brand with socially conscious causes has been a motif for Nike ever since.” But, do not be fooled. Nike uses sweatshops forcing people into “inhumane living conditions” to make their products.

Why is Rhodes so critical of these corporations publicly supporting causes in which he believes? His chapter on Gillette makes it clear. In 2019, Gillette released a new TV ad, directly attacking toxic masculinity, thereby attaching itself to the #MeToo movement. By this point in the book, the reader is conditioned to expect a litany of corporate horrors committed by Gillette. But Rhodes provides no such list. Gillette’s sole sin: they ran this advertisement because they thought it would be good for their sales. Their goal was “influencing public opinion and improving consumer attitudes towards the company.” That second goal, like original sin, taints the whole effort. “No longer content to just influence our spending habits and lifestyles, with woke capitalism big businesses enroll the very heart of our moral beliefs into their commercial strategies.”

Rhodes clearly misses the Good Old Days:

There was a time where corporations were inextricably associated with right-wing conservatism. Woke capitalism changed all of that with corporations directly and unequivocally touting themselves as progressive and politically active, often with a billionaire CEO as the conspicuous spokesperson cum (political) action hero.

Gone are the days when the Left knew that corporations were blood-sucking monsters out to destroy all that is good. Those evil masterminds running large corporations have learned to put on a mask, duping the unwary in their attempt to “seize political power.”

In a society which is deeply divided on question of wokeness, is it any surprise that businesses have realized that joining the Culture War in selective ways may be a means of attracting new sales?

Even Bill Gates’ effort to convince billionaires to devote half their wealth to charitable causes is part of this evil conspiracy. “In the end, modern billionaire philanthropy is an exercise of capitalist power, effectively an extension of that power beyond the confines of the economy. It diverts private assets to public purposes, yet without any public accountability. It is profoundly undemocratic and serves to shore up the power and influence of contemporary society’s billionaire protagonists.” Want an example? The Mellon Foundation gave $5.3 million to provide books to prisons. Rhodes complains that the gift just masks the problem of mass incarceration. Rhodes is ever quick to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Embracing Milton Friedman

While it is amusing to watch the ways Rhodes turns every act of Corporate Progressivism against itself in his quest to show that the only cure for Woke Capitalism is the end of capitalism, the book does raise a rather provocative question for conservative critics of Woke Capitalism. When you draw the battle lines over the desirability of progressive political causes, then it is quite natural for conservatives to see corporate leaders as becoming mere shills for the other side. Rhodes, however, thinks that battle line is misdrawn. He argues the divide is over the desirability of profit-maximizing businesses. As Rhodes sees it, Woke Capitalism is a problem because it deceives people into thinking corporate leaders are focused on something other than profits.

Here is the troubling question: what if Rhodes is right about the real goal of Woke Capitalists? Using Friedman’s formulation, the responsibility of business leaders is to make profits. To make profits, it is necessary to persuade people to buy your product. Suppose for a moment that embracing progressive causes results in higher profits for a company. Suppose the customer base for a company likes progressive causes and is more inclined to buy products from companies that share their values. If that is true, then what should a firm do if it wants to follow Friedman’s mandate that the sole responsibility of the business is to make profits?

Before thinking about the implications of that question, we should first examine the presupposition. In popular cadence, if a firm gets woke, does it really go broke? Both opponents and proponents of corporations adopting progressive causes will happily provide you with lots of anecdotal evidence. Nike’s sales rose after the Kaepernick ad; Bud Light’s sales fell after the Mulvaney promotion. Finding anecdotes that confirm your initial bias on the matter is easy; finding dispassionate studies which are persuasive to people who disagree is impossible.

But, set aside the question about whether wokeness is or is not profitable; that is not actually the right question. Imagine that a CEO believes that a woke advertising campaign will be profitable. After all, advertising is not an exact science; if it was, there would never be failed ad campaigns. If a business leader believes it will be good for profits to embrace wokeness, then what should the business leader do? It seems a bit odd for people to argue that businesses should focus on profits, but that a business should not adopt progressive causes when the managers believe it will be profitable to do so.

Thought about in this way, a curious conclusion arises. If you are convinced that a firm that gets woke will go broke, then what is the problem with Woke Capitalism? Won’t the firms adopting progressive positions die out? The real problem for conservatives occurs if wokeness is profitable. The real problem is if Rhodes is right, that Woke Capitalism is just a cynical form of profit-maximizing behavior. If it is profitable, then shouldn’t Woke Capitalism be encouraged?

Thinking about the implications of these questions makes it obvious that the debate over Woke Corporations is just a proxy war for the debate over the best set of cultural norms. In a society that is deeply divided on this question, is it any surprise that businesses have realized that joining the Culture War in selective ways may be a means of attracting new sales? Such a strategy might fail, but it also might work. In a free market, every business decision comes with risk; if you want to avoid risk altogether, stay out of the marketplace. If you want to win the Culture War, though, instead of complaining about firms trying to maximize profits, it would be better to focus on the moral-cultural institutions.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

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

FBI Whistleblowers: Wray Lied to Congress about J6, School Boards, Child Exploitation thumbnail

FBI Whistleblowers: Wray Lied to Congress about J6, School Boards, Child Exploitation

/in , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Two FBI whistleblowers are calling out FBI Director Chris Wray as a liar after Wray’s testimony in a Congressional hearing July 12. You mean a government bureaucrat at the weaponized FBI, who works for Joe Biden, lied under oath? I’m shocked, shocked!

FBI whistleblower Steve Friend was one person insisting Wray lied to the House Judiciary. He said Wray lied about surveilling school boards. He also tweeted: “The @FBI Director told @RepTroyNehls that no agents were reassigned from child exploitation investigations to domestic terrorism. Another lie. I was reassigned from child pornography cases and told those cases were going to be considered a ‘local matter.’” That’s particularly interesting in light of how much hate the movie Sound of Freedom is getting for exposing child sex trafficking.

Another FBI whistleblower, George Hill, said Wray lied when he said he wasn’t aware of undercover agents in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021. As it happens, there is a good deal of evidence about feds planted at the Capitol on January 6. This includes actual testimony from an FBI agent who was embedded undercover in the Proud Boys, and whose testimony undermined the lie of a “planned insurrection.” The FBI was even accused of destroying evidence for Proud Boys’ Jan. 6 case. Then there’s federal informant Ray Epps, who reportedly admitted to orchestrating the events of Jan. 6.

Jan. 6 was not an insurrection but a fedsurrection—and Wray’s FBI is part of the obscene persecution of the thousand or more innocent Jan. 6 prisoners.

[PJ Media] An FBI whistleblower says FBI Director Christopher Wray lied in testimony before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

George Hill, a supervisory intelligence analyst-turned-whistleblower who already gave statements to the Judiciary Committee and its chairman Jim Jordan, says Wray could not have believed he was telling the truth when he spoke about embedded agents in the crowd on January 6, 2021…[Rep.] Biggs basically asked: How many undercover agents did the FBI deploy to be in the crowd on January 6?

Wray played dumb: “Again, I’m not sure that I can give you the number as I sit here. I’m not sure there were undercover agents on the scene”…

[Wray said] something like this: No, I don’t know if there were agents that day (even though we already know there were because people have eyes and court filings), and I can’t talk about the agents…Whistleblower George Hill says there’s no possible way Wray couldn’t know about “undercovers” walking among the innocent — and guilty — on January 6…The host indicated that Wray wasn’t sure there were undercover FBI agents in the crowd, to which Hill shot back, “That’s a lie, OK?” And then he explained how he would know and how the director would have known…“So that’s a lie?” [WMAL radio host Vince] Coglianese asked.

“Absolutely,” Hill confirmed. “I’d look him in the eye and tell him it’s a lie. He would have had to have violated his own procedures going back decades [not to have agents in the crowd].”

Wray, like his boss Biden, lies for a living.

TAKE ACTION

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

The US Government Sent Millions of Grant Dollars to Alleged COVID ‘Patient Zero,’ Documents Show thumbnail

The US Government Sent Millions of Grant Dollars to Alleged COVID ‘Patient Zero,’ Documents Show

/in , , , , , /by

By Jon Miltimore

In June, The New York Times ran an exposé detailing the tragedy that we may never know the origins of COVID-19.

“For three years, the U.S. government has been tied in knots over the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, frustrated that China’s hindrance of investigations and unwillingness to look critically at its own research have obscured what intelligence agencies can learn about whether the virus escaped from a lab,” reported Julian Barnes. “Inquiries during the Trump and Biden administrations have yielded no definitive answers.”

That the conversation on the origins of the virus is shifting from “preponderance of evidence” to “definitive answers” is itself evidence that we may be closer to answering the mystery of COVID’s origins than many realize.

Patient Zero?

In November 2019, three lab researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China became severely ill, according to a U.S. intelligence report obtained by the Wall Street Journal in 2021. The researchers, whose identities were not disclosed, became so sick they were hospitalized, the report stated. The timing of the event is noteworthy. The three lab workers, the Journal noted, were hospitalized in November 2019, “roughly when many epidemiologists and virologists believe SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind the pandemic, first began circulating around the central Chinese city of Wuhan.”

Two years later, the identities of the three lab workers allegedly hospitalized were revealed. US government sources identified the three lab researchers as Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu, according to recent reporting from Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag in Public.

The Atlantic notes the “extraordinary” nature of the findings, if true.

“These proposed patient SARS-CoV-zeroes aren’t merely employees of the virology institute; they’re central figures in the very sort of research that lab-leak investigators have been scrutinizing since the start of the pandemic,” writes Daniel Engber. “Their names appear on crucial papers related to the discovery of new, SARS-related coronaviruses in bats, and subsequent experimentation on those viruses.”

Hu’s name is especially important. The man many are dubbing “patient zero” didn’t just work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. According to documents published by the White Coat Waste Project obtained via a FOIA request, Hu was receiving US grant money to perform gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.

“The funding came in three grants totaling $41 million, doled out by USAID and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, the agency then headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” the Intercept reports. “Hu is listed as an investigator on the grants.”

Pretty Specific Symptoms

These are not the only important details that have many suspecting Hu is “patient zero.” There’s also the fact that he was a top lieutenant of Shi Zhengli, a scientist literally named “batwoman” for her extensive research on viruses taken from bats in caves. And then there’s the fact that unreleased intelligence reportedly says the sick lab workers lost their sense of smell—one of the telltale signs of COVID.

“That doesn’t medically prove that they had COVID but that’s some pretty specific symptoms,” Josh Rogin of the Washington Post noted in an interview with Bari Weiss.

Finally, as Science notes, Hu is an “appealing suspect” because he “was a lead author on a 2017 paper in PLOS Pathogens describing an experiment that created chimeric viruses by combining genes for surface proteins from bat coronaviruses that would not grow in cultures with the genome of one that did. This paper has received intense scrutiny because it was partially funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) … .”

None of this is a “definitive answer,” of course. And Hu claims the entire story is “fake news.”

“The recent news about so-called ‘patient zero’ in WIV are absolutely rumors and ridiculous,”  Hu wrote in an email to Science. “In autumn 2019, I was neither sick nor had any symptoms related to COVID-19.”

That Hu would deny involvement in the incident is hardly surprising.

“Denials of culpability and dismissals of evidence by a likely culpable person cannot be taken at face value,” said Rutgers Professor Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist.

The Smoking Gun?

That those responsible for the deadliest pandemic in a century would not wish to take responsibility for it should not surprise us. And I’m not just talking about Ben Hu.

There’s little reason to believe the Chinese government would be forthcoming if their investigation determined they were responsible for COVID-19. Similarly, there’s little reason to believe the US government, which was funding China’s coronavirus research, would be eager to get to the truth either.

Let’s not forget there was a serious effort by the US government to prevent Americans from even openly speculating about the lab-leak theory. In February 2021, almost certainly at the behest of federal agencies, which were working with social media platforms to combat COVID “misinformation,” Facebook announced it would remove posts that suggested “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured.” Months later, after it became widely accepted that the lab-leak theory was not “a crackpot idea” after all, Facebook was forced to backtrack.

Today many agencies within the federal government itself concede that the lab-leak theory isn’t just possible, but the most likely cause of COVID.

“The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2,” a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found.

Indeed, a preponderance of evidence is emerging that points to the Wuhan lab, and Hu may turn out to be the key.

“It’s a game changer if it can be proven that Hu got sick with COVID-19 before anyone else,” Jamie Metzl, a former member of the World Health Organization expert advisory committee on human genome editing told Public. “That would be the ‘smoking gun.’ Hu was the lead hands-on researcher in Shi’s lab.”

Dizzy With Success

That the deadliest pandemic in a century might have been triggered by scientists pursuing risky genetic research in pursuit of a “greater good” should not surprise us.

“Many of the most monstrous deeds in human history have been perpetrated in the name of doing good—in pursuit of some ‘noble’ goal,” the philosopher Leonard Read once observed.

Nor should it surprise us if it’s found that the Chinese government (with help from the US) was responsible. Governments have been responsible for the worst atrocities in history, usually while using collective force to advance utopia. This includes famous genocides like the Holocaust, the Holdomor, and Mao’s Great Leap Forward, but also eugenics policies that forcibly sterilized tens of thousands of Americans to create a “purer race.”

A half-century ago, F.A. Hayek warned about humanity becoming essentially drunk—“dizzy with success”—in their faith in the physical sciences, “which tempts man to try…to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.” He feared humanity’s faith in its ability to control the physical world stood to make those who controlled it a “destroyer of a civilization.”

Hayek was alluding to collectivism when he made these remarks in his Nobel Prize-winning speech, but it’s a similar Frankenstein-like hubris that lurks in gain-of-function research—which NIH continued to pursue despite warnings and pauses.

If the lab-leak theory turns out to be true, don’t expect these officials to be any more forthcoming than Ben Hu.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Arizona News: July 21, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: July 21, 2023

/in , /by

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors Pick Bolick To Replace Kaiser

Lawmakers Launch Investigation Into Alleged Censorship At ASU

ASU Honors Professors: Free Speech For Inclusive Figures Only

ASU’s Carefully Worded ‘Fact Check’ Of Our Article Leaves A Lot To Be Desired

ASU President’s Special Advisor: Affirmative Action Will Exist In Other Ways

Goldwater Institute Urges Yee To Protect ESA-Related Monies

Arizona Attorney General strikes down Superintendent Horne’s dual language ban

Horne Vows Court Challenge Of Mayes’ “Politically Charged” Dual Language Opinion

Gov. Hobbs Joins Climate Alliance Advancing Paris Agreement, Green New Deal

Jungle Primaries? Just Another Bad Idea Designed To Turn Arizona Into California

Inflation is shrinking Arizona’s infrastructure dollars

Arizona U.S. Senate seat race shaping into high-dollar slugfest

TAKE ACTION

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

Montana State Library Commission Cuts Ties With American Library Association Over New ‘Marxist Lesbian’ President thumbnail

Montana State Library Commission Cuts Ties With American Library Association Over New ‘Marxist Lesbian’ President

/in , , , , /by

By Joshua Arnold

The Montana State Library Commission voted Tuesday to withdraw from the American Library Association based on that organization’s new president, who is a “Marxist lesbian” by her own description.

The lopsided vote (5-1, with one abstention) represents the first time a state entity has withdrawn from the 147-year-old nonprofit.

“Our oath of office and resulting duty to the Constitution forbids association with an organization led by a Marxist,” the commission told the ALA.

After winning an election to become the president of the ALA from 2023-2024, Emily Drabinski celebrated in a now-deleted tweet, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of the @ALALibrary. I am so excited for what we will do together. Solidarity! And my mom is SO PROUD[.] I love you[,] mom.”

Drabinski later confirmed in an interview that the “Marxist lesbian” label is “very much who I am and shapes a lot of how I think about social change and making a difference in the world.”

“Queer theory informs new strategies for teaching the library catalog from a queer perspective,” Drabinski wrote in 2013, in an article titled “Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction,” which was published in the peer-reviewed quarterly journal Library.

Drabinski speaks frequently on topics such as “organizing for change,” “teaching the radical catalog,” “decolonizing the library catalogue,” “herstory through activism,” and “critical librarianship.”

In 2019, she co-authored a research article in Transgender Studies Quarterly documenting “a collective effort by a handful of catalogers” to revise library catalogue practices “so that binary gender was not encoded into the metadata of library records.”

“The ALA has been promoting progressive ideology for many years,” Meg Kilgannon, Family Research Council senior fellow for education studies, told The Washington Stand. “Their annual conference has had breakout sessions on how to feature racist and sexualized content frequently. The reelection of an openly Marxist president, who ran for the job promising to inject her militant views into the organization, was the last straw in Montana.”

At the commission’s June 22 meeting, Commissioner Tom Burnett proposed to consider withdrawing from the ALA at a special meeting, which was scheduled for Tuesday.

“Marxism stands in direct opposition to the principles of the Constitution of the United States,” said Burnett. “It’s fair to discuss and learn about Marxism, not to affiliate with Marxist-led organizations.”

“I believe that the national association has been polarized,” agreed Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen, another commissioner. “We do not need to be tethered to a national organization that does not honor our great state, our values, or our nation as being America.”

Kilgannon said public libraries are especially important in a state like Montana, a mostly rural state with long months of winter weather.

“The public library is where movies are checked out, books are checked out, community fellowship happens, especially when the weather is bad,” she said. “When politics enter this space or ideology takes over, it alienates the people libraries are supposed to serve.”

During an hour of public comment, many speakers supported the decision to withdraw from the ALA.

“I think this is a really good move to send a really clear signal to our national organizations that we are not in agreement with the direction they are taking these organizations,” said parent Cheryl Tusken.

Tusken drew a parallel to the Montana School Boards Association’s withdrawal from the National School Boards Association last year.

After NSBA leadership conspired with the Biden administration to draft a letter asking it to investigate concerned parents as domestic terrorists, 30 of its 49 member state associations “distanced themselves from the NSBA’s letter,” and 26 states took “further action … to withdraw membership, participation, or dues from NSBA.”

Even though the NSBA appointed a new CEO and issued an apology, many of those state associations formed their own alternate interstate association instead of returning.

“We are grateful to them for their leadership in setting a standard other states should follow,” said Kilgannon. “The National School Boards Association learned this the hard way. Amazingly, other education groups have failed to learn from that example or the millions of parents across the country who are speaking out.”

The Executive Board of the Montana Library Association issued a statement opposing the decision to withdraw from the ALA. However, not every Montana librarian shared its position.

One Montana librarian submitted an email comment, concealing his identity “due to fear of retribution.” He complained that he had watched “my profession go from honorable to shameful,” as “libraries all over the country and within Montana have shifted from serving communities to serving power.”

The anonymous librarian lamented that he noticed a “change in my co-workers who had become aggressive to the point of supporting violent acts (I have evidence of this I am not willing to share in an email).” He said he had “become fluent in critical pedagogy” to “adapt to the rapidly deteriorating conditions in my workplace and surroundings.”

In April, Montana found itself embroiled in a tense cultural controversy that drew national attention when the Legislature worked to enact a law to protect minors from irreversible, harmful gender-transition procedures.

A trans-identifying lawmaker accused his colleagues of having “blood on your hands” and urged on protesters who were disrupting proceedings. The protests only grew more heated after the Legislature censured the representative because he refused to apologize.

It “said a lot” that the librarian was afraid to use his or her name, Commissioner Tammy Hall noted, “because of the personal attacks this person would be open to if they didn’t follow what I would call ‘the woke agenda being promoted by the ALA to our librarians.’”

“Parents all over the country are waking up to the fact that many in organizations like ALA are not willing to entertain other ideas or accommodate differences,” Kilgannon added. “The best course of action now is to leave the organization, take your funds and brain power with you, and use that money to serve the people in your state.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

The Lifestyle Of Climate Radicals Tells You All You Need To Know About Their Sincerity thumbnail

The Lifestyle Of Climate Radicals Tells You All You Need To Know About Their Sincerity

/in , , , , /by

By B.L. Hahn

Either climate alarmists don’t actually believe the planet is doomed, or they aren’t as confident in that belief as they claim to be.

A panel of scientists recently claimed that humans’ effect on the planet is so significant it should be memorialized through the creation of a new geological epoch that began sometime in the middle of the 20th century. As we speak, climate activists are preparing to do what any well-adjusted, functioning adult would do on the heels of such news: glue themselves to a building or throw tomato soup at great works of art.

The latest breaking climate story always provides new opportunities for the left to sermonize, identify heretics, and reassert their moral and intellectual superiority while making no changes to their own lifestyles that would demonstrate even a modicum of sincerity. The oft-discussed hypocrisy of elites who charter private jets to attend climate summits is no secret, but less discussed is the day-to-day hypocrisy of the rank-and-file voters who comprise the broader Democratic Party.

Democrats describe global warming as an existential threat with only X number of years to act before the planet is on an irreversible course to becoming uninhabitable. It stands to reason that anyone who genuinely believes this would take dramatic steps to prevent our imminent annihilation. These measures would include self-imposed lifestyle changes far beyond driving an electric vehicle, yet when it comes to climate alarmists, so often we cannot pick their lifestyle out of a lineup.

The lifestyle of voters who believe humans are destroying the planet is often indistinguishable from that of those who believe manmade climate change is a hoax. This suggests one of two things: Either climate alarmists don’t actually believe the planet is doomed (or at the very least they aren’t nearly as confident in that belief as they claim to be), or they truly believe the planet is doomed but aren’t willing to inconvenience themselves in any meaningful way.

Neither explanation presents climate hysterics in a positive light. Living in a manner consistent with one’s proclamations requires sacrifice, and who needs that when you can sport beliefs like fashion accessories and enjoy the perks of trendy moralism without the hefty price tag? This window-dressing approach to morality offers Gucci fashion at Goodwill prices.

Activists will suggest that voting for the Democratic party is more than enough to demonstrate a genuine belief in the claim that we are on the brink of permanently destroying human civilization, but this fails to stand up to scrutiny. Anyone convinced that our extinction is imminent would certainly take it upon himself to enact radical change in his own life, even in the absence of laws requiring him to do so. Abdicating one’s duty by virtue of voting for politicians who claim to care about the planet is not an acceptable stand-in for personal responsibility — not when the stakes are that high.

Similarly, activists supposedly on a mission to thwart the destruction of the planet would not spend their time gluing themselves to artwork but instead would launch aggressive sabotage campaigns up to and including domestic terrorism. Unfortunately, given the increasingly violent nature of the left’s activism and their tendency to use just about anything as an excuse to tear down the society they despise, this is one area where their actions might eventually match their hysteria.

At this stage, it would be beneficial to properly characterize the left’s position on climate change, which is like a Jenga tower. It starts off relatively stable, but as things progress it begins to teeter:

  1. The earth is warming.
  2. Humans are contributing to this warming effect.
  3. Humans are significantly contributing to this warming effect.
  4. Humans are the primary cause of this warming effect.
  5. The data and modeling used to arrive at this conclusion are immune to human error and bias.
  6. This warming effect is mostly preventable.
  7. It is preventable only by implementing a centrally planned economy.
  8. Other countries will join our efforts, including our enemies, even though it would benefit them not to do so.
  9. There will be no unintended consequences to our plan.
  10. Anyone unwilling to accept this list from top to bottom is a “climate denier.”

It is not difficult to understand why Republicans are skeptical. Democrats present their argument with the credibility and trustworthiness of a flea market fortune teller, not only because their palm reading has proven to be wildly inaccurate in the past, but because their solutions have a striking resemblance to the agenda they’ve been trying to implement long before climate change was a thing. As if incrementally destroying the economy by transforming it into a centrally planned bureaucratic hellscape is not enough, the left has managed to work race into this issue— because of course they have.

Regular Americans are mocked for offering opinions on climate change because they are not experts, but one need not be a climate scientist to understand the fatal flaw in the left’s strategy. If we are to collectively address any problem, whatever the cause might be, solutions and teamwork become impossible when the left’s approach is nothing more than the shoddy work of rigid ideologues. Republicans have suggested that perhaps there are ways to address the effects of a changing climate without destroying the U.S. economy and compromising national security, but because their ideas do not exponentially grow the federal government and usher in a socialist utopia, they are ignored by the Democratic Party.

It would be disingenuous to claim there are zero climate alarmists living a lifestyle consistent with their beliefs. They do exist, I’m quite certain. I’ve just never met one. There is another explanation — perhaps every climate alarmist I’ve met has cleverly disguised himself as a “climate denier” to gain access to the seedy world of repugnant moral lepers who drive SUVs and eat meat — a secret mission to convert heretics from the inside. That must be it.

The parties will probably never agree on an approach, but I eagerly await the day when every climate alarmist practices what he preaches. If the leftists next door have one of those yard signs proudly staked on their front lawn that lists a variety of hollow political slogans including “we believe science is real,” at the very least they should downsize, get rid of their air conditioning, and use valuable lawn space not for bragging about the supposed moral character of their household, but for growing all their own food.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Bank of America Fined $250 Million for Illegal Practices: Are Conservative Lawmakers Holding Financial Institutions Accountable? thumbnail

Bank of America Fined $250 Million for Illegal Practices: Are Conservative Lawmakers Holding Financial Institutions Accountable?

/in , , , , /by

By Michael Infranzon

The recent news of Bank of America being fined $250 million for engaging in illegal practices has once again raised concerns about the accountability of financial institutions.

Bank of America’s Illegal Practices:

Bank of America has been ordered to pay a substantial amount in penalties and customer compensation due to a range of illegal practices. These include double charging for insufficient funds, withholding reward bonuses, and surreptitiously opening new accounts without customers’ consent or knowledge. Unfortunately, these practices, while shocking, are not entirely surprising considering the systemic issues within the banking industry.

The Lobbyist Influence:

One reason for the lack of accountability is the influence of lobbyists representing the banking industry. During recent sessions, these lobbyists openly admitted to discriminating against legitimate and legal businesses in Arizona based on arbitrary factors. This admission suggests that discriminatory practices are not only tolerated but also defended by industry representatives. It is concerning that the state seems powerless to intervene in these matters.

Legislation Attempts:

Senator Frank Carroll (LD-28) has been actively working to address the issue by introducing legislation multiple times aimed at distancing the state of Arizona from discriminatory banking institutions. One such bill this session, SB1096, sought to prohibit public entities from entering into contracts with companies that discriminate against firearm entities and associations. Unfortunately, when the bill reached Governor Hobbs, she vetoed it, deeming it unnecessary and expressing concerns about potential financial repercussions for the state.

Broader Banking Industry Scandals:

Bank of America is not the only major bank implicated in scandals involving discriminatory practices. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan & Chase have faced significant fines for similar offenses. Wells Fargo faced allegations of targeting vulnerable communities and charging fees on dormant accounts without customers’ knowledge, while JPMorgan & Chase settled a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in mortgage interest rates.

Discriminatory Practices Beyond Wall Street:

While the large national banks grab headlines, it is important to acknowledge that discriminatory practices exist across the entire financial services sector, including small and community banks. These practices often go unnoticed due to public perception, limited geographical reach, and smaller market share. However, the relationship banking model, often associated with smaller banks, can enable discriminatory practices through discretionary decision-making, challenging the wholesome image of “Main Street” banks.

The Call for Accountability:

In light of these recurring scandals and discriminatory practices, it is crucial for conservative lawmakers and regulators to hold financial institutions accountable. Rather than perpetuating the status quo, lawmakers should take a stand and say, “We will no longer do business with institutions that engage in discriminatory practices.” It is essential to establish clear regulations and ensure strict enforcement to protect consumers and businesses from these harmful practices.

Only through comprehensive banking reform and enforcement can we hope to create a fair and transparent financial system that serves the interests of all stakeholders.

****

Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at minfanzon@epicpolicygroup.com

TAKE ACTION

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

When Democrats Were Violent Election Deniers thumbnail

When Democrats Were Violent Election Deniers

/in , , , /by

By Craig J. Cantoni

The reaction of Trump and his loyalists to losing the 2020 presidential election was namby-pamby compared to how Democrats reacted to losing the 1876 election.

History not only repeats itself but reveals how the Democrat and Republican parties have switched roles over time.  What each one accuses the other of doing, each has done the same.  Refusing to accept the results of a presidential election is one example.

Donald Trump and his loyalists refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, claiming that there was massive vote fraud.  One hundred years after the Declaration of Independence, Democrats claimed the same about the presidential election of 1876.  They resorted to violence and almost tore the nation apart.

In the 1876 election, Ohio Governor Rutherford Hayes, a Republican, ran against New York Governor Samuel Tilden, a Democrat.

Tilden won the popular vote by a margin of over 250,000, but with the electoral votes of three states still outstanding, he was one electoral vote shy of winning the Electoral College.  He had 184 electoral votes to Rutherford’s 166.

The three outstanding states were Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana.  If they went for Tilden, the Democrat would win by a comfortable margin. If they went collectively for Rutherford, the Republican would eke out a victory.

A bitter, no-holds-barred battle ensued over vote counting in these three states and lasted an agonizing four months.  The popular vote was so close in the three that a swing of a few hundred votes could determine the winner.

As a holdover of Republican policies, Reconstruction was still in force in the three states, with federal troops stationed in them to protect the voting rights and safety of former slaves, who had a large voting majority in S. Carolina and were a large Republican voting bloc in Florida and Louisiana.

Reconstruction and the corresponding federal troops throughout the former Confederacy had had a tremendously positive effect on blacks, with many being elected to various offices and starting businesses and schools.  But the bloodshed and cost of the Civil War had made Americans weary of maintaining high troop levels in the South.

This was a tragedy that still resonates today.  Reconstruction had demonstrated that blacks suffering from the horrors of slavery could advance politically and economically on their own if their rights were protected.  If Reconstruction hadn’t ended too early, far fewer blacks would have later needed the paternalism of the welfare state and been treated as helpless children by condescending whites, a condescension that continues today.

In the battle over the 1876 election, Democrats in Florida, S. Carolina and Louisiana resorted to murder and other violence in spite of the presence of federal troops.  The targets were Republican blacks and whites.  For example, in Ellenton, S. Carolina, an estimated 500 armed whites had threatened to kill or whip blacks if they voted Republican.

President Grant sent additional troops to the three states to maintain order. And in response to rumor that Washington, D.C., was going to be attacked by a Democrat militia, he beefed up security at the city’s bridges and arsenal.  In addition, he sent official observers to monitor the vote count in the three states, especially in jurisdictions where Democrats had engaged in vote fraud.

When the votes were finally tallied and submitted to Congress, Hayes ended up winning the Electoral College by one vote.  Democrats responded by submitting to Congress a different set of electors, who of course claimed that Tilden had won.

In a precursor to what is known today as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a Democrat congressman in early January 1887 called for one hundred thousand Democrats to rally in Washington for Tilden’s inauguration.  The publisher of the New York World, Joseph Pulitzer, urged them to come “fully armed and ready for business.”

Eventually, a group of Republicans and Southern Democrats met at Wormley’s Hotel to try to reach a compromise.  The hotel was considered one of the best in Washington and patronized by the wealthy and powerful.  The owner was James Wormley, a noted black entrepreneur and the son of a freeborn couple.

Democrats finally agreed to accept Hayes as president if he would end Reconstruction and withdraw troops from Florida, Louisiana and S. Carolina.  The agreement came to be known as the “Wormley Compromise,” which was rich with irony considering the race of James Wormley.  The compromise would pave the way for Jim Crow and an emboldened KKK.

 Much of the foregoing comes from the fascinating book, An Assassin in Utopia, by Susan Wels.  The book details the political and social upheavals that led to the murder of President Garfield in 1881.

Garfield’s assassin had been expelled from the Oneida Community, which was a utopian experiment, or cult if you will, in Upstate New York. It was one of hundreds of such idealistic communities in the nation in the nineteenth century.  Like many of them, Oneida established a collective enterprise and upended the traditional norms about sex and family, with the top guy (the alpha male?) setting the rules about sex, with him benefiting the most.  Based on the idea of free sex, men and women were discouraged from making commitments with one partner and, instead, to have sex with anyone at any time.  Children in turn were raised by the collective.

Of course, experiments based on the bending of human nature never last, but this hasn’t stopped the experiments.  Similar social and sexual arrangements were adopted by Jim Jones and his People’s Temple, by David Koresh and his Branch Davidians, and by Charles Manson and his “family.”  Likewise, free love was one of the foundational tenets of the hippie and flower child movement of the sixties and early seventies.  And it’s not a stretch to draw parallels with modern welfare policies and cultural norms that have given rise to single-parent families and to such an acceptance of promiscuity that “baby momma” and “baby daddy” are part of today’s lexicon, with awful consequences for children and men and women, but for women more than men.

A closing warning for Republicans:  Be careful about lambasting Democrats for being the party of Jim Crow and other forms of racism, based on their despicable actions in the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth.  Another fact of history is that many Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party in reaction to President Johnson’s Great Society.  At the same time, most blacks moved to the Democrat Party.

Remember, history repeats itself and the two parties switch roles. No doubt, this will continue as long as the U.S. exists.

TAKE ACTION

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

Have We Forgotten the Russian Way of War? thumbnail

Have We Forgotten the Russian Way of War?

/in , , , , /by

By Victor Davis Hanson

“I think I am not exaggerating when I say that the campaign against Russia has been won in fourteen days.”

General Franz Halder, June, 1941, Chief of Staff, Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres

Masters and commanders of history who have sworn that they have defeated an incompetent, disorganized, and corrupt Russian army are legion. For a time they seemed to have been correct. But there is a pattern to their encounters with the Russian army that is germane to the current Ukrainian offensive.

In 1707, Swedish King Charles XII appeared like he could successfully invade Russia in the manner that he had defeated Russian armies. But by 1709, he had wrecked the Swedish army against a numerically superior enemy that seemed to grow despite losing battles.

Napoleon won more battles than he lost in Russia, took, and burned Moscow—and destroyed his own French army in the process. The famous invasion chart of Charles Joseph Minard graphically demonstrated how his Grand Army shrunk each day it advanced further into Russia.

The 3.5 million-man Wehrmacht expeditionary force consistently crushed the Russian army for nearly two months following its invasion of June 22, 1941—killing nearly 3 million Russians. Such catastrophic losses would have broken any Western army.

But by December 1941, the Germans could no longer win the war in the east.

One might object that it is a truism that invading the vast landscape and enduring the harsh weather of Mother Russia is a prescription for disaster; yet Russian armies do poorly when they invade other countries and fight as aggressors outside of their homeland.

Yes and no.

Certainly, the preemptive Russian attack on Kyiv proved an utter disaster. Who can forget the scenes of last winter when sitting-duck, long columns of stalled Russian vehicles were picked off in shooting-gallery fashion by brave Ukrainian ad hoc units? But note saving Kyiv was the mere beginning not the end of the war.

Resilience and recovery from disasters are the historical trademarks of the Russian army.  From May to September 1939, a Russian army under the soon to be heralded General Zhukov fought a large Japanese force on the Mongolian-Manchurian border. Despite the battle hardened and military ascendant imperial Japanese military, the Russians withstood every Japanese assault, and eventually destroyed 75 percent of Japanese forces.

On September 17, 1939,  a duplicitous Soviet Russia invaded Poland from the west, under the agreements of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939.

The large Russian force hit a Polish army reeling from nearly three weeks of relentless hammering from a German invasion that had attacked from three directions. Although the belated advance of the Russian army was not especially impressive, its victory was foreordained.

The three-and-a-half month Finnish-Russian “Winter War” of 1939-40 is usually referenced as an example of the gritty heroism of the outnumbered Finnish army and the general ineptness of the invading Russian behemoth that outnumbered the heroic Finns by more than two to one. When the tattered Russian army finally ground down the Finns and forced them to negotiate, they had suffered nearly 400,000 casualties, perhaps five times Finnish losses.

The Russian invasion was poorly planned, inadequately supplied, incompetently led, and characterized by low morale. And yet the invasion was eventually mostly successful given the numerical and material advantages of Russia—and Moscow’s seeming indifference to its massive losses. Its trademark war of attrition eventually proved too costly for tiny Finland.

In the current Ukrainian war, over the last 16 months Russia has suffered unimaginable setbacks. It has lost more planes, helicopters, armored vehicles—and soldiers—than at any time since World War II. The morale in the Russian military is reportedly shot.

Westerners understandably gleefully watched the bizarre “coup’ staged by Yevgeny Prigozhin and his mercenary “Wagner Group,” in anticipation of some sort of civil war or forced abdication of Vladimir Putin. “Putin is finished” has been a mantra since February 2022.

In short, the Russian “special military operation” is a sorry Russian saga of self-inflicted wounds, abject ineptitude, and callous treatment of its own. So why then does Russia continue such wastage?

True, Russia can draw on well over three times the population as Ukraine, from a territory 30 times larger. In contrast, perhaps a quarter of Ukrainian’s prewar population has left the country, leaving a population of fewer than 30 million.

Westerners scoff at the anemic and hemorrhaging Russian economy—even before the war only half the size of California’s. Yet Russian GDP is nonetheless ten times greater than Ukraine’s.

Perhaps the key to the Russian enigma is a reductionist “Russia doesn’t care” about its massive losses that by now would have toppled any Western government that oversaw such senseless carnage.

Russian incompetent commanders certainly have wasted tens of thousands of young Russian lives. Russian medical care at the front is atrocious; becoming wounded is often synonoymous with a death sentence. Supplies of food and munitions are unreliable.

Somewhere between 150-200,000 Russian soldiers may have already died, been wounded, or captured. Russia may have lost nearly an astonishing 6,000 armored vehicles and nearly 200 aircraft.

And yet here we are with the Russian army entrenched on the borderlands, still in possession of 11 percent of Ukraine’s post-2014 territory.

In frenzied fashion, the desperate Russians have nearly finished a modern version of a Maginot Line of zigzagging interconnected trenches, reinforced concrete tank traps, minefields, artillery crossfire fields—all protected by mobile reserves and aircraft, missile, and drone support. They have awaited the vaunted “spring offensive” of Ukraine,” perhaps hoping to kill one Ukrainian for every two Russians they lose.

These ossified World-War-I-like fortifications are laughed off by Western analysts as an anachronistic multibillion-dollar blunder of static defense.

Yes, we smirk at such crude Russian obstinance. But increasingly now rare are the March and April triumphant boasts of Western generals, pundits, the media, and political officials that the long promised reckoning would unleash a Ukrainian armored Pattonesque romp through and around the blinkered Russians—and perhaps a Cannae entrapment that would swallow such calcified deployments and end the war outright.

After all, the U.S. and NATO have poured $200 billion into Ukraine’s increasingly state-of-the art war machine. Top Western advisors and intelligence officials daily advise Ukrainian generals.

Kyiv now spends more annually on defense than any other country except the U.S. and China. Its soldiers are perhaps more battle-hardened than any in NATO, its army better equipped than any Western military except the American.

Yet we still hear constant light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel escalatory revisionism.

We were once told that the U.S. should not supply Ukraine with state of the art 155mm artillery.

Likewise taboo were billion-dollar-plus Patriot antiaircraft missile batteries and the sophisticated M142 HIMARS rocket platforms. We hoarded these costly systems, and feared Russia might do something stupid once its soldiers and planes were shredded by such sophisticated American arms.

We were assured that shipping Abrams tanks would be unwise given similar fears of escalation.

F-16s? They too, we were told, were not needed, and might also earn a wild counter-response from Russia. All these munitions are now green-lighted.

Now we are to ship controversial cluster bombs. Again, all these weapons were demanded by Ukraine as the final tools that would supposedly help crack the clunky Russian army.

The latest once verboten escalation is the call up of U.S. reservists, “just in case” they are needed in Europe to ensure the supply and training of Ukrainians—or, alternatively, in theory to be ready to supplant U.S. combat troops that would be sent into Ukraine.

The recent agreement to ship cluster bombs, designed to shower entrenched Russian conscripts with “steel rain” jumped the proverbial shark.

Western leftists, previously known for their moral outrage over using such macabre weapons used on the modern battlefield—often by Western units fighting for their lives in the Middle East—were among the most vocal clamoring for such shipments, the most recent necessary antidote to the supposedly neanderthal Russian concrete and steel barriers. Will we soon see upscale houses in liberal communities with new lawn signs, “In this house, we believe in cluster bombs?”

Yes, the Ukrainians have far better equipment than does Russia. They have moral right on their side, and they continue to fight doggedly and heroically, despite mounting and ultimately unsustainable losses.

Yes, the Russian economy is in tatters.

Yes, Putin’s grip on power is in danger, given that his foolhardy invasion is destroying the reputation of the Russian military, solidifying NATO, and destroying a generation of Russian youth.

And yes, there is also a long Russian way of war.

Historically the Russian military is not preemptive but reactionary and sluggish. It was historically plagued by Czarist, Soviet, and oligarchic bureaucratic incompetence. It treats its soldiers as cannon fodder, and relies on sticks rather than carrots to mobilize its youth.

Yet the resilient Russian army is also dogged as it bends but rarely breaks—even if its tactics of pouring men and fire against the enemy are scripted and predictable. We laugh at the unimaginative Russian entrenchments, but we also accept that to breach them will require a cost in blood and treasure that Ukraine and its Western benefactors may not wish to pay, although Russia itself may well gladly pay that tab and more still.

Given Russian military history, it is stunning how confident Western military analysts have been in predicting not only that smaller Ukraine would expel neighboring Russians from what they grabbed in 2022, but also go on to recapture the borderlands and Crimea.

Their predictions assumed that catastrophic Russian losses, the dividends of Moscow’s stupidity and indifference, the amorality of the invasion, the evil of Putin, and the nobility of the new united NATO would all ensure Russian defeat.

Yet history would differ. It would answer that to win a war, proverbially long-suffering Russia must first almost lose it.

Unfortunately, this Verdun-like war is a long way from over.

*****

 This article was published at American Greatness and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

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

Vilnius, NATO & American Attitudes: A Take On The Bigger Picture thumbnail

Vilnius, NATO & American Attitudes: A Take On The Bigger Picture

/in , , , , /by

By Marvin A. Treiger

Editors’ Note: The Prickly Pear welcomes varying opinions and interpretations of issues both domestic and international. The following article by Marvin A. Treiger concerning the Ukraine Russian war accompanies Victor Davis Hanson’s article about the history of Russian war fighting and the implications for the current and future situation on the ground in Ukraine and Russia. Both articles are highly informative and give the readers of The Prickly Pear important perspectives on a critical foreign policy issue and threat for this and future administrations, especially as we enter the 2024 Presidential election cycle.

Face it. In your bones you want Ukraine to win.  Every decent American wants this outcome. It’s in our DNA and goes back to our Founding. It is natural for us to support plucky, freedom-fighting patriots against Empires led by Russian dictators like Putin.

NATO, led by the US under Biden and at a great cost, has given Ukrainians the military wherewithal to reduce the Russian invasion to a stalemate. Cracks in Putin’s rule, the weakness and ineptitude of his army, and his teetering international support (with Turkey supporting Swedish entry into NATO last week) have thrown Russia onto its back foot.

The future is unknown but one thing is clear. Russia has failed in its effort of the 2/24/22 invasion to conquer Ukraine. This is very good news for the future of Europe and for our emerging and ultimately greater conflict with China.

Sadly, as these momentous events are unfolding, we on the right have chosen a path of quasi-neo-isolationism characterized by disarray, misreadings of history, and non-Reaganesque squishiness.

Let us take the question of NATO. Too many Republicans have falsely argued that any expansion of NATO threatens war and even nuclear war because Russia sees NATO at its borders as an existential threat.

The reality is that NATO is, has been, and continues to be a defensive alliance with no mechanisms to conduct offensive operations and with even limited control of its members in support of defensive actions. This by no means indicates that NATO just sits pretty without throwing its weight around but Putin knows he won’t be invaded. He has other motives.

Membership in NATO eliminates the possibility of his gobbling up countries so he can restore his dream of some semblance of the old Russian or Soviet empires. Hence, he absorbed Georgia in early 2008 with Bush looking on, and Crimea in 2014 with Obama looking out the window. Add to that, his lo-level war in the Donbas, starting also in 2014, and none of which was part of NATO.

Putin has effectively eliminated the “buffer” state concept used effectively during the Cold War to contribute to avoiding war in Europe. Today, Putin does not see “buffer’ states but “plums” to be plucked. He has forced NATO’s hand.

This is why NATO membership was desperately sought by Finland and Sweden. Multiply that wish by a thousand and you get Zelensky and the Ukraine.

The Slavic and related peoples’ mindset has been as variable as their checkered, bloody, and despotic history. To some, Kyiv and Ukraine belong to Russia; to others, Russia and Moscow originate and belong to Kyiv and therefore Ukraine. Their histories contain a host of issues almost impossible to settle which remain eternally convenient for use as propaganda in the present by all sides.

Wisely, the Vilnius Conference, strongly supported by Germany and the US, rejected Zelesnky’s pleas to join NATO leaving a path to entry to an indeterminate future.

NATO’s Documents forbid membership entry while a nation applying is at war or with uncertain and challenged borders. Also, there are other conditions for membership such as the nature of civic institutions, etc., that must be resolved prior to admittance.

Ukraine is presently the second most corrupt nation in Europe with Russia (no surprise) taking top honors. Eventually, membership for Ukraine is a stated goal of NATO but anything more at this time –  such as a definite plan for membership – unnecessarily escalates the tensions with Moscow.

Membership in the EU has different standards and could work as a transition since achieving prosperity can assist reform. Ukraine would need years to rebuild as well. These are matters best settled on the ground for the present.

Gradualism regarding Ukrainian entry into the EU and NATO is a dramatic departure from the utopian essence that informed the neo-conservatism of the George Bush administration. We learned the hard way that a foreign, occupying nation cannot generate a modern democracy on unsuitable soli. Iraq and Afghanistan drove that lesson home.

That said, we don’t want to overcorrect and embrace some variant of neo-isolationism.  Libertarians call for cutting all ties with NATO which leaves us where exactly? Tucker Carlson has promoted pro-Russian bloggers like Andrew Tate. Pro-Putin propaganda needs to be seen for what it is.

What then should be our stance on Ukraine? Our candidates need to forthrightly declare that our goal is a viable, independent Ukraine with secure borders.They have not yet done so. What, for example, have Trump and DeSantis said about the war?

Trump says, if President, he would end the war in one day. Does he think Putin is Kim Jong-un and getting Kim to stop missile testing – as Trump did – is in any way comparable to halting this major European War? At best, this is meaningless bravado; at worst it is dangerous nonsense.

DeSantis has been, well, “squishy” is a good word, going from “territorial dispute” (an error he pulled back from) to a measured ambiguity.

Trump and DeSantis have both opposed the use of  “cluster bombs”, which while a worthy line to draw is small ball in the larger context of the war. In fact, does it not imply they would support other forms of military support? Why not say so? Why not say they support Ukraine and would be more successful and less error prone than Biden in doing so? I can’t help but wonder how Reagan would be speaking about all this.

Our bigger problem is, you guessed it, Biden. Our knee-jerk reaction to him distorts our objectivity. If Biden is for it, we must be against it. On the whole, this is a natural and appropriate reaction. After all, it’s hard to find here a single domestic policy that we can support. The same goes for most of his foreign policy. Not only that but even if that blind squirrel picks up an acorn now and then, he will, as even Obama said, “F—k it up!”

On Ukraine however, Biden deserves our support but with plenty of our criticism. Remember he began by offering Zelensky “a ride” out of the country. In other words, he was quite prepared to cede Ukraine to Russia. Then, when Zelensky’s resistance caught fire, Biden massively steps up military support, exceeding all other NATO countries combined seemingly abandoning our long-term goal initiated by Trump for Europe to pay its own way. Then he seems oblivious to the dangers of a wider nuclear war; then he is suspiciously implicated in blowing up the Nordic pipeline; then he depletes our ammo storage without replacements leading to offer, of all inhumane weapons, cluster bombs. 

Biden is senile, incompetent, and a puppet of Obama-related forces. He is wild hair and a loose cannon. We know his unsavory history of racism, groping, plagiarism, serial lying, unending errors in foreign affairs, and just plain smallness and vindictiveness as a person. Not to mention his leadership of a corrupt family crime syndicate unequaled in the American history of the Presidency. 

And yet, our most profound national interests coincide with the main thrust of support for a Ukraine victory that chastens the Russians.

Here is why I believe we must prevail in Ukraine. It has been rightly said that unified control of the Eurasian continent would likely come to dominate the world.

The China/Russia axis is potentially that power. Nixon/Kissinger brilliantly prevented this during the Cold War. We must see to it again in our generation. China and Russia have formally formed a so-called “unbreakable alliance”. A Russian victory in the war – which still could happen in a prolonged stalemate – would solidify that alliance. 

The Defeat of Russia in Ukraine pulls the rug out from under that eventuality. It also makes China less likely to try an invasion of Taiwan.

China, in any case, knows it is not yet ready to take on the US. Our current ammunition depletion and oil reserve drains and self-defeating feckless military leadership notwithstanding

Its stepped-up harassment of Taiwan militarily is a calculated strategy designed to weaken Taiwan internally and is succeeding to a degree. China is committed – wisely from their point of view – to a longer-range strategy.

Facing a weakened Russia, the Chinese are more likely to go after EurAsian raw materials than treat the Russkies as an “equal” partner. They have plenty of historical claims they can drudge up to that end. 

A weakened Russia pressed by an increasingly formidable China may even one day finally turn to its historic European links which should have been our more explicit goal at the end of the Cold War. Sadly, Yeltsin’s weakness as a leader stopped initial steps in that direction.

On the contrary, if Russia prevails, then our entire worldwide strategic position is weakened and Taiwan is surely next.

My point in advancing this bigger picture is not for the sake of speculation or prediction. And, of course, I realize, so much that is unpredictable will take place.

But, over time, fundamentals abide and we need to, like the Chinese seem to be doing, take the long view.

For now, Biden is leading Western support for Ukraine’s defensive war and deserves our support with massive criticism. That is a fact.

Let’s get rid of Biden or whatever radical Democrat they throw up in the next election and set the whole ship of state aright. If we succeed, we will have the best chance of forging, or beginning to forge, a new national unity.

TAKE ACTION

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

Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left thumbnail

Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left

/in , , , , , /by

By David Harsanyi

The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

This is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that the government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.

Then again, we’re already bailing them out, I suppose. Last week, the U.S. Energy Department lent Ford — again, a company that loses tens of thousands of dollars on every EV it sells — another $9.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for a South Korean battery project. One imagines no sane bank would do it. The cost of EV batteries has gone up, not down, over the past few years.

Ford says these upfront losses are part of a “start-up mentality.” We’re still pretending EVs are a new idea, rather than an inferior one. But scaremongering about climate and a misplaced romanticizing of “manufacturing” jobs have softened up the public for this kind of waste.

In the real world, there is Lordstown. In 2019, after General Motors — which also loses money on every EV sold — shut down a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, then-President Donald Trump made a big deal of publicly pressuring the auto giant to rectify the situation. CEO Mary Barra lent Lordstown Motors, a new EV outfit, $40 million to retrofit the plant. Ohio also gave GM an additional $60 million.

You may remember the widespread glowing coverage of Lordstown. After Biden signed his “Buy American” executive order, promising to replace the entire U.S. federal fleet with EVs, Lordstown’s stock shot up.

By the start of this year, Lordstown had manufactured 31 vehicles in total. Six had been sold to actual consumers. (Most of them would be recalled.) The stock was trading at barely a dollar. Tech-funding giant Foxconn was pulling its $170 million. And this week, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Without massive state help, EVs are a niche market for rich virtue-signalers. And, come to think of it, that’s sort of what they are now, even with the help. A recent University of California at Berkeley study found that 90% of tax credits for EVs go to people in the top income strata. Most EVs are bought by high earners who like the look and feel of a Tesla. And that’s fine. I don’t want to stop anyone from owning the car they prefer. I just don’t want to help pay for it.

Really, why would a middle-class family shun a perfectly good gas-powered car that can be fueled (most of the time) cheaply and driven virtually any distance, in any environment, and any time of the year? We don’t need lithium. We have the most efficient, affordable, portable, and useful form of energy. We have centuries’ worth of it waiting in the ground.

Climate alarmists might believe EVs are necessary to save the planet. That’s fine. Using their standard, however, a bike is an innovation. Even on their terms, the usefulness of EVs is highly debatable. Most of the energy that powers them is derived from fossil fuels. The manufacturing of an EV has a negligible positive benefit for the environment, if any.

And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

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

Arizona News: July 18, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: July 18, 2023

/in , /by

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Jungle Primaries? Just Another Bad Idea Designed To Turn Arizona Into California

Maricopa County’s LD3 PCs Rightly Suspended By Unanimous Vote

Legislature forms committee looking into ASU free speech concerns

Arizona, We Have A Problem: The State Of S.T.E.M. Education

Peoria School Board Overlooks Evidence Of Trans Violence To Align With Biden Policy

Peoria School Board Members Advocate For Boys To Invade Girls’ Bathrooms

Horne Continues Fight To Protect Girl’s Sports In Court

Mitchell Leads Push Back Against Hobbs’ Abortion Executive Order

The Push For ‘Net Zero’ Isn’t Clean Or Green

TAKE ACTION

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

House Republican Bill Would Keep Foreign Nationals From Voting In U.S. Federal Elections thumbnail

House Republican Bill Would Keep Foreign Nationals From Voting In U.S. Federal Elections

/in , , , , /by

By Shawn Fleetwood

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., introduced legislation earlier this week ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens are able to vote in federal elections.

Titled the “NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act of 2023,” the proposed bill includes amendments to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and 2002 Help America Vote Act that seek to clarify states’ authority in maintaining federal voter registration lists and establish that federal election funding cannot be “used to support States that permit non-citizens to cast ballots in any election.”

Under the NVRA, states are required to “ensur[e] the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office.” The current version of the law, however, only refers to “eligible voters” and does not include a provision about citizenship requirements.

While the Constitution and federal law stipulate that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections, several Democrat-led cities in states such as Maryland and California have adopted measures in recent years permitting the practice for their respective municipal elections. In October, for instance, Washington, D.C. passed legislation granting foreign nationals the ability to vote in the district’s local elections. House Republicans’ efforts to revoke the law have been blocked by Senate Democrats.

“Since the Constitution prohibits non-citizens from voting in Federal elections, such ineligible persons must not be permitted to be placed on Federal voter registration lists,” the NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act reads.

In order to ensure noncitizens aren’t voting in federal elections, Griffith’s bill includes a provision requiring states that permit localities to allow noncitizen voting in their respective elections to place such non-citizens on a voter registration list “separate from the official list of eligible voters with respect to registrants who are citizens of the United States.” The measure further mandates “the ballot used for the casting of votes by a noncitizen in such State or local jurisdiction may only include the candidates for the elections for public office in the State or local jurisdiction for which the noncitizen is permitted to vote.”

While Congress does not possess the authority to manage state and local elections, it can control federal funding that is allocated to these jurisdictions for the purposes of election administration. Griffith’s bill seeks to utilize this authority by reducing any federal payments issued to a state or locality that permits noncitizen voting by 30 percent and prohibiting them from using funds for certain “election administration activities.”

“One of the rights and privileges granted in the U.S Constitution is an American citizen’s ability to vote in our country’s federal elections,” Griffith said in a statement. “If non-citizens are allowed to vote in our federal elections, it could invite foreign interference and dilute the voice of American citizens. The NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act upholds Americans’ right to vote, preserving our great democracy.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

Movie Review: The Sound of Freedom thumbnail

Movie Review: The Sound of Freedom

/in , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

From seemingly out of the blue, an independent film about child sex trafficking has eclipsed some heavyweight Hollywood productions for the summer box office draw. In actuality, we learn the film was produced some five years ago and it took all this time and struggle to get it to the big screen.  Why such a struggle?

Like many of you, we have heard about the film and the criticism that it was simply a front for the blatherings of Qu Anon conspiracy advocates.  But most of this is coming from talking heads on left-wing TV networks and we discounted much of what they said.

Besides, The Prickly Pear had run some important articles (here and here) about the film, so we decided to see it for ourselves.

There have also been anecdotal reports of “funny business” by some theatres to suppress viewership.  We had our own experience and can’t verify the experience in the video below.

We saw the show at a multiplex in Arrow Head Mall in West Phoenix.  As we attempted to purchase for a matinee show, we were shown a diagram of a full theatre with just two seats available, right up against the big screen in the extreme right-hand extreme corner.  We decided to take them knowing that a visit to the chiropractor would likely follow almost two hours of stressed necks.  After all, we were late getting to the facility and felt that was the penalty for tardiness.  But once we were in, we found at least a half dozen empty seats and moved to more comfortable seating.  Why would theatres do that?  Was this deliberate or just incompetence? Aren’t they dying to win back customers?

We were glad to find seating. Wow, what a movie!

Both my wife and I felt we could not recall ever seeing a movie as moving as this one.  It is extremely well-acted.  We marveled at where the producers found these child actors and actresses. Jim Caviezel is outstanding and believable.

This is no date night movie.  The theme is a dark one, and that is perhaps what is drawing the ire of the Left.  It suggests there are boundaries when it comes to sexual behavior and the children are off limits.  This happens to be a big topic right now in our society and the Left seems hell-bent on sexualizing children.  For what ends are debatable but the attempt is undeniable.

Some, of course, will not tolerate any “God Talk” in a movie, although they are quite happy to see lots of secular moralizing about “global warming”, racism, and gay rights.  But we found really no political content in this movie.

There is mention of God only twice I can recall.  One involves the statement that “God’s children are not for sale.”  One would have to be really jaded to object to that.  The movie does not do a lot of moralizing but the story itself carries the burden.

We are very hard-pressed to see why so many critics either ignore or criticize this movie.  You would think if there was any subject where a bipartisan consensus could be achieved, it would be in opposition to child sex slavery.

Conservatives need to support all the forms of new communication that help break the monopoly of the Left on our culture. See the film and support its producers.  Moreover, see this film because it is powerful and beautiful art that tells an important story and you are well justified to see it on those grounds alone.

TAKE ACTION

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

Identity As Politics thumbnail

Identity As Politics

/in , , , /by

By Conlan Salgado

Identity politics is well acknowledged in conservative circles as one of the worst scourges of postmodernity. As its name suggests, there are two different aspects to this phenomenon: a theory of identity and then a theory of how identity relates to politics. The latter term is relatively easy to define: for everybody living after the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, politics means, very simply, “power dynamics”.

The classical idea that politics is a means of organizing a political community (polis) remains embedded within this newer, more disturbing definitiona but only insofar as that “organizing of the political community” is properly informed by the power dynamics existing among—and this is where identity politics comes in—different identity groups.

One result of this way of understanding politics is that the individual becomes unimportant except as a representative of some identity group. This thinking often motivates the policies overtaking the corporate world: diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring. When a white man comes in and applies for a position, he may, as an individual, be obviously qualified.He may be far and away the most qualified candidate who is seeking the position. But the white race overall is not qualified to hold such-and-such position because the white race already has an unfair distribution of power; a good hiring manager will therefore engage in politics (the process of distributing/redistributing power to change the dynamics) and gift the position to a candidate from a less privileged identity group.

The problem of defining identity is a little more difficult, although I’ve hinted at the fact that identity is understood not as an individual occurrence, but something which is formed at the level of the group. Perhaps as a corollary to this group-oriented understanding, there has emerged, over the past 6 or 7 decades, a strange identity-related phenomenon which I have chosen to call “the psychological synecdoche.”

Synecdoche, of course, means using a part to represent a whole, as in referring to ‘boots’ (boots on the ground) as ‘soldiers’. Synecdoche is integral to the understanding of symbolism, especially in literary theory. I’m using it in a slightly less conventional sense: what I mean by it here is this practice of choosing one aspect of yourself—say, your sexuality or your race—and attempting to create a comprehensive identity from it.

 One simply has to look to the group-identifying individual to confirm the point I’m making; after all, if one is gay, this concerns not only who one has sex with, but also how one is supposed to vote, one’s religious affiliation (obviously), which community organizations one belongs to and supports, what kind of flag one flies, etc. Another phenomenon, almost as strange as and far more perverse than the psychological synecdoche, is that of privatizing aspects of one’s identity which should be publicly expressed and publicizing aspects of one’s identity which ought to find a more private expression.

Take religion, more particularly Christianity, whose adherents have been told time and again beginning in the 1960s that their religious beliefs ought not to affect anyone outside the four walls of their own home. Certainly, a company publicly professing biblical beliefs or a traditional Christian ethic is nowadays completely off-limits.

This attitude ignores the fact that religion is by nature congregational and communal; sexuality, on the other hand, is not congregational. It is an intimate affair, or ought to be.  Sex takes place between two people. To parade through the streets screaming about sex, post on public forums detailing one’s sexual experiences, fly flags outside of embassies to show sympathy for certain sexual acts, deliberately and diabolically confuses what should be the private nature of all sexual acts.

To return to my original observation, that of the psychological synecdoche, it will inevitably lead to a very disordered understanding of the human person if one insists on marginalizing the full range of human experiences to prioritize merely the sexual experience, or racial experience. It will lead to even worse disorder if one tries to racialize or sexualize all experience, which is the identity politician’s alternative to the problem of marginalizing some experiences at the expense of others.

Identity is a very complex process. I would suggest it is one of both becoming and being.  It involves acts of congregation and community and also acts of intimacy. A well-ordered identity will incorporate the full range of human experiences; it will not marginalize the religious for the sexual, nor marginalize the civil for the racial, nor the ethical for the political. It will comprehend all six categories and numerous others as well. It will rebel against any notion that the inner life of the human being can be summed up in a few simple words, or a few silly slogans.

TAKE ACTION

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

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.