Why So Many Families Are Uprooting and Fleeing to Freer States thumbnail

Why So Many Families Are Uprooting and Fleeing to Freer States

By Kerry McDonald

Emily Burns had every intention of staying in Massachusetts. A longtime Boston resident, she, her husband, and three children left the city to settle in the upscale suburb of Newton in January 2020.

What followed were two years of ongoing disruption and frustration. Prolonged school closures and continued coronavirus policies such as mask mandates angered Burns. Initially, this mom chose fight over flight.

She announced a conservative run for US Congress, representing Massachusetts’s 4th district, a long-shot attempt in a staunchly Democratic area. Her primary issue was pushing back against COVID policies, particularly those that impacted school children. Her message resonated and Burns collected more than $100,000 in donations for her campaign in just one quarter. She was an outspoken advocate for children and families and called out the Massachusetts politicians who continue to double-down on coronavirus mandates even as elected officials elsewhere eliminate them.

Burns was recently featured in a popular article, “Revenge of the Covid Moms” on Bari Weiss’s Substack, that spotlighted mothers who are fed up with endless virus restrictions and are taking action to end them.

Ultimately, Burns had enough of fighting. This week, she terminated her political campaign and explained that she and her family are fleeing to Texas where her husband has an opportunity to open a new company office.

“My leaving is entirely predicated on what is best for my family,” Burns wrote. “My trust in the political and cultural leadership of this state is totally broken. The past two years have shown me that I cannot protect my children from the ill effects of that leadership. Given the chance to escape those malign forces, I had to take it.”

Fight or flight is a choice that more Americans are facing, especially those who live in parts of the country with continued coronavirus restrictions and the constant threat that, even if ended, those restrictions could re-emerge at any time by political decree.

Indeed, this is the topic of this week’s LiberatED podcast: Should You Move?

In the episode, I talk to homeschooling mom, Bretigne Shaffer, who left California last month for more freedom elsewhere. Like Burns, Shaffer initially tried to fight, to push back against extended COVID policies and build community with like-minded people in her area. Also like Burns, she finally got tired of fighting.

This is a national trend, as US Census Bureau data released in December showed that restrictive states such as California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts lost population between July 2020 and July 2021, while states with less-restrictive virus policies like Texas, Arizona, and Florida gained population during that time. Writing about these population trends for FEE, economist Peter Jacobsen explained: “Lockdowns, documentation mandates, school closings, and other COVID regulations are likely just too cumbersome for some to tolerate.”

Fight or flight is a tough choice for families, but at least it’s a choice that Americans can enjoy thanks to federalism and the ability to vote with our feet. We can choose to live in a different city or state, and select different state and local governance, due to the decentralization of power envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

As more people move to states they see as offering greater freedom and opportunity, there is some concern about political change in their new states. Could newcomers bring with them policies and perspectives that could threaten the very freedom they are seeking? FEE’s Fresh Start States project helps to prevent this through outreach and information promoting the principles of personal and economic freedom to those settling in new areas.

What if You Can’t Move?

Still, for a whole host of reasons, many families can’t or don’t want to move somewhere else. In that case, they can keep fighting. Burns has some advice for families staying put.

“Start talking about your concerns publicly–and don’t pull punches,” she told me in an interview this week. “Don’t vacillate and say things work when you think they don’t. That’s how we got stuck here. You will find more people agree with you than you think. Then, if you can, run for something, and run on these issues–lean into them. These issues shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat, so run however you feel comfortable. Talk about the things that concern you–not whatever the party line is supposed to be. Being public about it will help you find the people in your area who are sympathetic, and who will form the base of your support,” she said.

It’s a dynamic moment in the US, and many individuals and families who never before considered uprooting their life for a new one elsewhere are giving it serious thought. Perhaps you are one of them.

Listen to this week’s LiberatED podcast for more insights on this topic. You can listen here, on AppleSpotifyGoogle, or wherever you get your podcasts.

*****

This article was published by FEE and is reproduced with permission.

Game-changer? Huge Revelation in Kari Lake’s Election Challenge Trial thumbnail

Game-changer? Huge Revelation in Kari Lake’s Election Challenge Trial

By Matt Margolis

It was, perhaps, a small miracle that Kari Lake’s election challenge was allowed to go to trial, but the tough part still lies ahead: proving beyond a reasonable doubt (Count II) that ballot printer problems on Election Day were intentional, designed to affect the results of the election—and that they, in fact, did—and (Count IV) that additional votes were allowed to be counted in violation of the County Election Manual.

On Wednesday, Lake’s team took a huge step toward doing that.

When asked by Lake’s attorney Bryan Blehm if the county knew on Election Day how many ballots had been submitted by the voters, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer testified that they did not. According to Richer, individual polling places did not tally the number of votes cast — an apparent violation of state law.

This is significant because Lake’s lawsuit claims, among other things, that between Nov. 9 (the day after Election Day) and Nov. 11, the number of votes the county reported having counted in the election increased by nearly 25,000 — which exceeds Katie Hobbs’ alleged 17,000-vote victory.

“Highlighting the chain of custody failures … is the fact that two days after Election Day was completed, Maricopa County found more than 25,000 additional ballots, whereas properly followed chain of custody procedures would require Maricopa County election officials to know the exact number of ballots submitted by the day after Election, November 9, 2022,” Kari Lake’s attorney explained in their legal brief…..

*****

Continue reading this article at PJ Media.

Kari Lake Trial: Election Day Chaos in Maricopa County Was Enough to Change the Results, Pollster Testifies thumbnail

Kari Lake Trial: Election Day Chaos in Maricopa County Was Enough to Change the Results, Pollster Testifies

By Debra Heine

The widespread voting machine issues that caused long lines and delays in Maricopa County on Election Day “definitely impacted the outcome” of Arizona’s gubernatorial midterm election and was “substantial enough” to change the result, pollster Richard Baris testified on day 2 of the Kari Lake trial.

Republican candidate Kari Lake and her legal team claim that she would have beaten Democrat Katie Hobbs had the voting equipment failures not disenfranchised her voters on Election Day.

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson previously dismissed eight out of the ten claims Republican candidate Kari Lake made in her lawsuit, allowing only her claims that a Maricopa County employee interfered with ballot-on-demand printers, and the county didn’t follow proper chain-of-custody procedures, to go forward.

Thompson said that she would have to prove that “the printer malfunctions caused by this individual directly resulted in identifiable lost votes,” and that those lost votes impacted the results of the election.

On Wednesday, Lake’s lawyers revealed that a review of random ballots found that 48 out of 113 (42.5 percent) were “19-inch ballots produced on 20-inch paper,” causing them to be rejected.

Clay Parikh, a witness who examined the defective ballots on behalf of the Lake campaign, testified that the discrepancy looked deliberate because someone had to have changed the printer configurations.

Baris, the director of Big Data Poll, testified under oath on Thursday that the Election Day chaos caused by the tabulator issues, disproportionately affected Republican Voters and probably affected the outcome of the election.

The pollster said that people heard about the long lines in the news and on social media, and that deterred many of them from voting.

Baris explained that it may be hard for hardcore politicos to understand, but Average Joe voters have a life, and don’t have hours to spend waiting in line to vote.

“We can conclude with a degree of mathematical certainty that this affected this chunk of voters,” he said. “Is that enough to have changed the outcome? And I am offering the opinion that that range is enough to put the outcome in doubt.”

“In my professional opinion,” he added, “this definitely impacted the outcome. The only question for me is whether it had the potential to change the result, and in my professional opinion, it did—it was substantial enough change the leader board.”

*****

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

10 Steps to Save America thumbnail

10 Steps to Save America

By Victor Davis Hanson

Most Americans know something has gone terribly wrong—and very abruptly—with the United States. They are certain that our wounds are almost all self-inflicted. The current pathologies are not a result of a natural disaster, an exhaustion of natural resources, plagues, or an existential war.

Crushing national debt and annual deficits, spiraling food and fuel costs amid “normal” seven-percent-plus annual inflation, bread-and-circuses entitlements, a nonexistent border, a resurgence of racial tribalism, pandemic violent criminality, and humiliation abroad—all these pathologies are easily cited as symptoms of a sick patient. Our crises are not as the Left maintains—a nine-person Supreme Court, the Electoral College, or the filibuster—all distractions from existential problems the Left largely created.

So, what are the therapies and prognoses for America?

In the spirit of constructive rather than blanket criticism, here is a partial, 10-point plan of national recovery.

Cut the Debt

Americans’ national debt is now $31 trillion. That is about 123 percent of current GDP. The liabilities are unsustainable. We run annual deficits of $1.6 trillion. These financial obligations will eventually ensure that rising interest rates to service the debt crowd out essential spending for national defense and the general welfare.

Or in extremis, in the not too distant future, the government will be forced to default on what it owes the “rich” bondholders and foreign debt holders. Or the government will be forced to confiscate private wealth, as for example occasional crazy suggestions to nationalize and absorb 401(k)k retirement plans into the soon-to-be-insolvent Social Security system. Or the state will simply print millions of dollars to pay off obligations, Weimar-style.

In addict style, the more we come to realize that our binging habit cannot go on, the less we can practice self-restraint. And the more it is the case that those who receive government redistributions outnumber those who pay the majority of federal income taxes, the less hope there remains to avoid insolvency.

In 2010 then-President Barack Obama appointed a bipartisan “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.” More commonly remembered as the Simpson-Bowles commission, after chairmen Senators Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles (D-N.C.), it included private citizens and elected officials.

The commission recommended radical tax simplifications and some cuts—along with reductions in tax deductions and credits, an increase in the gas tax, restraints on entitlement spending, and various spending caps.

Obama and Congress ultimately rejected the recommendations and the commission’s blueprint died. But had it succeeded, the current debt would have long been frozen at the 2014 level of $17 trillion—with annual reductions ensuring that this coming year 2023 the debt would have plunged to $10 trillion and then disappeared in another decade.

Something like Simpson-Bowles could still stop the madness and avoid the natural corrective on the horizon of financial collapse. Note that federal tax revenue has increased almost every year since 2010. Sometimes it grows by nearly a half-trillion dollars per annum, even as we sink deeper in debt. Our crisis, then, is one of spending what we do not have rather than one of declining revenue.

Secure the Border

We no longer have a southern border. There have been 5 million illegal border crossings just since Joe Biden took office. He intentionally destroyed immigration law for cheap political advantage. Nearly 50 million current American residents were not born in the United States. Well over 20 million—and perhaps 30 million—are illegal aliens. Old melting-pot efforts at assimilation and integration eroded into the salad-bowl metaphor that has just become tribalism—even as intermarriage is at an all-time high.

The Left brags that “demography is destiny” as it cheers the changes in the electorate aimed at ensuring its political dominance. And simultaneously, it smears conservatives who agree with its triumphalism as “great replacement theory” conspiracists.

Yet we finally found a solution in 2019-2020. Had we continued replacing rickety border fencing with an effective wall and then completed it along the entire border, had we stopped catch-and-release, had we continued demanding that refugee status be obtained before entry, had we forced Mexico and Central American governments to stop exporting human capital and subjected them to taxes on more than $60 billion in annual remittances (along with trade penalties) for their complicity with the situation at the border, had we continued to deport those who entered illegally, had we returned to assimilation and integration on the theory any who entered America did so because they wanted to become Americans, then a desired legal, meritocratic, and diverse immigration policy might easily have assimilated and absorbed perhaps 200,000 skilled and legal immigrants per year.

Again, we had the outlines of a solution and then simply destroyed it for liberal political agendas and cheap corporate labor.

Tap Natural Resources

Similarly, by 2020, the United States enjoyed inexpensive fuel. It was all but independent in gas and oil. It had become the world largest combined gas and oil producer. That status radically curtailed the need for optional military engagements in the Middle East. It gave America enormous clout against hostile oil exporters like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. And such independence helped reduce vast trade deficits.

Again, the Biden Administration simply exploded the idea of fossil-fuel independence as a gradual transition to sustainable energy. So simply doing the opposite of its policies would correct the pathology almost immediately: Issue more federal gas and oil leases, approve the Keystone and Constitution pipelines, reopen the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and build nuclear power plants. The present course of high-priced and scarce gasoline and oil is eroding the middle class, spiking inflation, widening class divisions, and reducing American autonomy abroad.

Oppose Discrimination

Never has the United States seen more evidence of progress in racial relations, and never has such progress given way to more tribalism. If we do not return to a Martin Luther King, Jr. “content of our character” policy—one that views race as incidental rather than essential to who we are—then our future is a sectarian one with echoes of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Iraq.

Affirmative action was never envisioned as permanent quotas and race-based reverse-discrimination. Yet after over a half-century it has ballooned under the idea of “diversity” to invent a victim class of nearly a third of the nation, absurdly and loosely defined—in an age of commonplace intermarriage—as “non-white.”

Help for the underprivileged should be race-neutral and entirely based on class and income, given numerous ethnicities exceed the so-called white medium income. The labyrinth of racial categories grows unfathomable. The identity politics mess logically results, on the one hand, with rank iconic frauds like Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill, and Rachel Dolezal, and, the other hand, with well-off poseur victims in the manner of a Meghan Markle, Colin Kaepernick, or Jussie Smollett.

Substitution of racial criteria for merit, rather than aiding the poor of all races, is creating a commissar-like drag on the economy, spiking racial and ethnic tensions, and ensuring that every group will eventually, for its survival, go tribal on the basis of the same logic that applies to nuclear proliferation. Again, the remedy? Just enforce civil rights statutes that prohibit racial discrimination and consider the Pavlovian shriek of “racism!” as the revealing projection of racists.

Disrupt and Reform Higher Education

Our universities are failing to produce competent graduates essential to a meritocratic nation engaged in fierce global competition. Increasingly, students are politicized, largely ignorant, indebted, bitter, and unable to ensure American preeminence in basic science, technology, engineering, and math.

Yet the solutions are again simple: get the government out of the student-loan business that ensures escalating tuition hikes greater than the rate of inflation. Eliminate faculty tenure and replace it with five-year contracts that require demonstrable achievement. Subject large endowments to taxation on their interest income to curb their wasted spending. Allow public schools to hire either those with school of education credentials or one-year master’s degrees that focused solely on academic study. Require standardized exit tests, in the fashion of erstwhile SAT and ACT entry tests, for the certification of the bachelor’s degree. Force universities to follow the Bill of Rights on campus, regarding due process and freedom of expression.

These are not radical suggestions. Yet the likely fierce faculty opposition to them is proof that the Left envisions higher education as it views Silicon Valley—another private monopoly that helps to maintain political power in lieu of popular support.

Revive the Armed Forces

Our military is in dire straits. It is overcommitted, under-resourced, and without any geo-political strategy other than ad hoc responses without defined objectives. It has become politically weaponized and, inevitably, unable to meet recruitment goals. The Pentagon remains obsessed with exorbitantly priced weapons that cannot be produced in sufficient numbers in an age of hostile swarms of cheap, mass-produced drones and thousands of batteries of ground-to-air and shore-to-ship missiles.

Constant profiling, racial, and gender quotas and obsessions over proportional representation and disparate impact increasingly apply to training, education, and promotion—to everything except worries over the disproportionate profile of those killed in battle. The Pentagon has become adept in publishing racial data on every aspect of military service to emphasize disparity and bias—except concerning the combat dead.

To address the changes, retiring high-ranking officers should refrain from board memberships on contracting corporations for at least five years upon leaving the military. The uniform code of military justice must be strictly enforced, including article 88 which prohibits retired officers from attacking in personal terms high-ranking elected officials, and in particular their commander-in-chief.

Woke training is destroying morale and battlefield efficacy. The military must return to a race and gender neutral stance that does not erode meritocratic standards to fit political agendas. We should never again witness a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff virtue signaling to Congress and the nation his intention to understand “white rage” in the ranks, without supplying any confirmatory evidence or data for his apparent allegation of systemic racism in the ranks—particularly not while the greatest U.S. defeat and humiliation in a half-century was unfolding on the horizon in Kabul. Any high-ranking military officer who informs his Chinese counterpart of his own psychiatric diagnosis that his commander-in-chief is unhinged and thus U.S. strategic intentions will first be relayed to Beijing should be summarily dismissed.

Fix Voting

Elections are a mess. The greatest political revolution in our election history has been the change—accelerated under the cover of COVID and the George Floyd riots—in many key states from a 20-30 percent “absentee ballot” vote to 70-80 percent early/mail-in balloting. In a mere four years we have all but destroyed Election Day voting and Election Night final tabulations as we had known them for decades.

All discussions of voter IDs, fraud, and charges and countercharges of election denialism are irrelevant if there is no real mechanism to validate the authenticity of mail-in ballots that have incomplete or false addresses, names, and signatures, or do not match registration rolls. Third-party ballot harvesting and ballot curing should be outlawed at the federal level, and we should return to the requirement of requesting absentee ballots rather than automatically sending them out. Otherwise, no future election will again win the confidence of a majority of Americans. And without trust in balloting, consensual government becomes nonexistent.

Drain the Swamp

Americans distrust the “swamp,” administrative state, or deep state. Call what you will, the Washington nexus of bureaucracies, media, and lobbyists has created a huge, unelected permanent army of auditors, regulators, investigators, and punishers, all mostly exempt from audit and accountability and without fear of their elected overseers.

The easiest solution is to break up concentrations of power. Transfer out of Washington, in this age of zoom and telecommunications, major cabinet departments like Health and Human Services, Energy, or Agriculture into the hinterland. Restore the idea that lying to Congress, feigning amnesia, or pleading ignorance under oath to Congress or federal investigators or in depositions is a prosecutable felony with jail time.

Had we restored equality under the law, then an Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and John Brennan would not have dared lie under oath. And a Robert Mueller, James Comey, Anthony Fauci, or Jack Dorsey might have not so easily believed they simply could plead memory loss or mislead in a fashion that no American would dare to do with the IRS.

Being forced to tell the truth would be a powerful deterrent against bureaucratic overreach.

Finally, ossified centralized agencies like the FBI need to be broken up and their bureaus redistributed through the cabinet-level departments to avoid past pathologies resulting from a concentration of power.

Upend the Welfare State

The number of those receiving federal and state subsidies is beginning to match the number of those who subsidize them. “No one wants to work anymore” is now a common public lament. Inflation and recession may come and go, but workers are now scarce whether we are in boom or bust times. Labor non-participation remains at an all-time high. Soon only 60 percent of the available labor force will be working. Trillion-dollar COVID subsidies have accelerated the idea that Americans need not work full-time to maintain a living.

We can easily return to the “workfare” championed by a triangulating Bill Clinton in the 1990s that demanded healthy and able recipients to be gainfully employed upon receipt of state and federal cash. In the context of the homeless, we need to return to pre-Reagan norms of institutionalizing the mentally ill and creating hospitals and safe spaces away from American downtowns to house those who either cannot or will not take care of themselves. Defecating, urinating, injecting, and fornicating on city-streets are not victimless crimes, but assaults on civilized life as we once knew it.

Restore Norms

The fact is, few public norms are left. Rather than the current therapeutic obsessions that seek to divide Americans into binaries of oppressors and the oppressed, we are in desperate need of civic education in K-12 that acquaints all children and teens with American institutions, key events like Gettysburg or D-Day, and familiarity with the Constitution and the duties of the citizen. We will get nowhere basing our understanding of the world on psychodramas and therapeutics.

Neither journalists nor elites understand, much less appreciate, the First Amendment, and in ignorance despise the Second.

Like it or not, the nuclear family remains the bulwark of the American nation, which will not survive if current fertility rates of below 1.7 children per woman continue to diminish and age the population. The government must incentivize childbearing and child raising.

Without clear punishment for violent crimes, deterrence is lost, and the innocent become victims of the exempt criminal class. Critical race theory, critical legal theory, and critical criminology theory are euphemisms for unleashing lawbreakers upon the vulnerable. We are in a strange cycle in which we deliberately do not enforce gun laws in our cities and then when murder reaches near historic proportions we blame unenforced guns laws rather than the criminals who are exempt in using deadly weapons as the cause.

These are just a few of the many ways that the United States could stop the present madness—which, after all, was entirely self-created.

*****

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

Gov.-Elect Katie Hobbs to Scrap Arizona’s Position As Top State for School Choice thumbnail

Gov.-Elect Katie Hobbs to Scrap Arizona’s Position As Top State for School Choice

By Susan Berry, PhD

When Katie Hobbs becomes Arizona’s next governor, she plans to utilize the support of teachers’ union lobbyists to undo the nation’s most expansive school choice program.

Hobbs promised on her campaign website she would be “addressing unaccountable expansion of school vouchers”:

Too often, Republicans have completely disregarded public opinion in an effort to defund our public schools. At every turn, they have moved to expand school vouchers without common-sense measures of accountability, with the clear intent to eventually do away with our local public schools. Arizona Republicans pressed forward with their latest attack on our schools by passing a law to expand school vouchers universally, a decision that 65 percent of Arizona’s voters readily rejected in 2018.

“Katie continues to oppose the universal expansion of school vouchers,” her campaign website stated. “As governor, she will work to roll back universal vouchers, which the legislature enacted against the will of voters this year. Vouchers should not have been expanded to provide an unaccountable means of enriching private schools and defunding our local public schools.”

Hobbs’ campaign promise is aligned entirely with the position of national teachers’ unions, which holds that allowing taxpayer funds to follow the child, and not the government school system, is a move to “dismantle public education,” as her website stated…..

****

Continue reading this article at The Arizona Sun Times.

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis thumbnail

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis

By F. William Engdahl

Most people are bewildered by what is a global energy crisis, with prices for oil, gas and coal simultaneously soaring and even forcing closure of major industrial plants such as chemicals or aluminum or steel. The Biden Administration and EU have insisted that all is because of Putin and Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. This is not the case. The energy crisis is a long-planned strategy of western corporate and political circles to dismantle industrial economies in the name of a dystopian Green Agenda. That has its roots in the period years well before February 2022, when Russia launched its military action in Ukraine.

Blackrock pushes ESG

In January, 2020  on the eve of the economically and socially devastating covid lockdowns, the CEO of the world’s largest investment fund, Larry Fink of Blackrock, issued a letter to Wall Street colleagues and corporate CEOs on the future of investment flows. In the document, modestly titled “A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance”, Fink, who manages the world’s largest investment fund with some $7 trillion then under management, announced a radical departure for corporate investment. Money would “go green.” In his closely-followed 2020 letter Fink declared,

“In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant re-allocation of capital…Climate risk is investment risk.” Further he stated, “Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change.” [i]

In a separate letter to Blackrock investor clients, Fink delivered the new agenda for capital investing. He declared that Blackrock will exit certain high-carbon investments such as coal, the largest source of electricity for the USA and many other countries. He added that Blackrock would screen new investment in oil, gas and coal to determine their adherence to the UN Agenda 2030 “sustainability.”

Fink made clear the world’s largest fund would begin to disinvest in oil, gas and coal.  “Over time,” Fink wrote, “companies and governments that do not respond to stakeholders and address sustainability risks will encounter growing skepticism from the markets, and in turn, a higher cost of capital.” He added that, “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects… we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” [ii]

From that point on the so-called ESG investing, penalizing CO2 emitting companies like ExxonMobil, has become all the fashion among hedge funds and Wall Street banks and investment funds including State Street and Vanguard. Such is the power of Blackrock. Fink was also able to get four new board members in ExxonMobil committed to end the company’s oil and gas business…..

*****

Continue reading at Global Research.

BREAKING: Kari Lake Trial Reveals 42.5% of Randomly Examined Ballots Were Improper thumbnail

BREAKING: Kari Lake Trial Reveals 42.5% of Randomly Examined Ballots Were Improper

By Collin Rugg

According to Republican governor candidate Kari Lake’s legal team, 42.5% of examined ballots in Maricopa County for the 2022 governor’s race were illegitimate. Lake’s trial began on Wednesday were she is attempting to prove that wide scale fraud took place in Maricopa County on election day.

The Lake War Room tweeted on Wednesday that 48 of the 113 ballots that were reviewed during examination were “19-inch ballots produced on 20-inch paper.”

This one-inch discrepancy caused chaos on Election day causing the mass rejection of these votes as they were attempted to be read through the tabulators,” the Kari Lake War Room tweeted.

In a separate tweet, the Lake War Room wrote, “This is how they disenfranchised Maricopa County voters on Election Day. The ballots were designed to be unable to be read through the machines. This wasn’t an error. It was malice. The process worked exactly as they intended it to.”

One commenter on Twitter noted that there was no way the improper ballot size could have been because of “error.”

“The expert testified there are only 2 ways for the 19 inch image to have been projected onto the 20 inch ballot which would cause tabulator errors. Both methods require an administrator to change. This could not have happened by chance or error. It was fraud.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Trending Politics.

Rapid Factory Growth in Arizona Led by Record-Breaking Commerce Authority Effort thumbnail

Rapid Factory Growth in Arizona Led by Record-Breaking Commerce Authority Effort

By Carly Moran

Last week, two technology companies announced new factories in Arizona, leading to over 500,000 total private sector jobs created by the Arizona Commerce Authority under Gov. Doug Ducey.

These three factories are a part of over a dozen manufacturing companies that announced their expansion in Arizona this year. In total, over 15,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under the Ducey Administration’s ACA since January 2015.

“The Governor’s tenure has been transformational for our state,” said Sandra Watson, CEO of the Arizona Commerce Authority. “With his leadership, the right business environment, and a thriving innovation ecosystem, Arizona has become an international hub of advanced manufacturing, bringing new opportunities for small businesses and rural communities across our state.”

The ACA includes aerospace and defense, bioscience, technology and manufacturing as its targeted industries. The rapid factory development in Arizona is only a small piece of the state’s innovation at work.

One of the two companies that announced new locations in Arizona is the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, hoping to return semiconductor production to the United States. The business seeks to build two plants in Phoenix, one by 2024 and the other by 2026.

“When complete, TSMC Arizona aims to be the greenest semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States producing the most advanced semiconductor process technology in the country, enabling next generation high-performance and low-power computing products for years to come,” said TSMC Chairman Dr. Mark Liu. “We are thankful for the continual collaboration that has brought us here and are pleased to work with our partners in the United States to serve as a base for semiconductor innovation.”

Production of the two facilities is estimated to create 10,000 tech jobs and employ an additional 10,000 construction workers. The project is a $40 billion investment in the Valley of the Sun, with an estimated 600,000 wafer per year output.

The American Battery Factory was the other company to push Arizona to create 500,000 jobs. The group has plans to build a $1.2 billion lithium ion factory in Tucson, with the goal of 1,000 jobs on-site.

“With this first factory, we will secure a strategically positioned company headquarters while taking the critical first steps in making it possible to one day move the country and the entire world to 100% renewable power,” said Paul Charles, CEO of ABF. “We are honored to start this journey in Tucson and give back to the community through innovation, quality job creation, revenue generation and environmental protection.”

The nearly 2 million square foot campus will be the largest gigafactory in lithium iron phosphate production and is the first to break ground in a series of ABF locations nationwide.

“When we took office, our economy was broken, and fixing it was a top priority,” said Governor Ducey. “The engine of our economic growth has always been our people. Today, Arizonans have access to abundant jobs as well as the opportunity to work in good-paying industries with the potential for advancement. With this kind of momentum and our incredible talent, Arizona is unstoppable.”

*****

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

FBI Promised ‘No Impediments’ To Data Sharing With Twitter Before 2020 Election, Internal Docs Show thumbnail

FBI Promised ‘No Impediments’ To Data Sharing With Twitter Before 2020 Election, Internal Docs Show

By John Hugh Demastri

The FBI promised that there were “no impediments to information sharing” between itself and Twitter in a Sept. 16, 2020 meeting with Twitter legal executive Stacia Cardille, according to internal documents published by journalist Matt Taibbi Friday.

Cardille reported the promise to then-Deputy General Counsel James Baker — a former FBI lawyer who was instrumental in securing approval for the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page using information from the discredited Steele dossier — in an email sent following the meeting, according to Taibbi. Cardille also expressed dismay that Twitter’s Public Policy account tweeted about the meeting without first consulting the legal team.

The policy team’s tweets mention that the collaboration was working with the government to address the impact of COVID-19 on the election — something that Cardille does not mention in her email. Cardille tells Baker that the meetings are soon set to become weekly, but no further tweets from the policy team during that election cycle mention meeting with government agencies.

“The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities,” the FBI said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.”

The relationship between the FBI and Twitter appeared to remain in some capacity as recently as Nov. 10, 2022, when the agency reached out to notify Twitter of four accounts that “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service,” according to Taibbi. One of the accounts, @fromMA, which regularly posts anti-Republican and anti-Trump comments, was brought to Twitter’s attention for jokingly reminding Republicans to vote “Wednesday November 9,” while Election Day was actually Nov. 8, Taibbi reported.

Although the @fromMA account remains active, the tweet that caught the attention of the FBI appears to have been deleted. Taibbi noted that all four accounts, including @fromMA, were suspended.

The FBI forwarded the names of 25 accounts to Twitter on Nov. 6, 2022, with Twitter taking action against 17 of them, Taibbi reported. The Twitter account for the pro-Trump Right Side Broadcasting Network and actor Billy Baldwin were the only high-profile accounts on the list, and neither had actions taken against them.

Taibbi’s report comes after Twitter CEO Elon Musk temporarily suspended eight journalists from the platform, amid allegations that they were endangering the safety of him and his family for sharing his location on the platform. Several news outlets whose journalists were suspended disputed these allegations, with the Washington Post’s Executive Editor Sally Buzbee saying in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation that the suspensions undermined “Elon Musk’s claim that he intends to run Twitter as a platform dedicated to free speech.”

*****

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

Leftists Call Free Speech ‘Violence’ To Mute Critics Of Barbaric Transgender Surgeries For Kids thumbnail

Leftists Call Free Speech ‘Violence’ To Mute Critics Of Barbaric Transgender Surgeries For Kids

By Chad Greene

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy organization, has targeted conservative commentator Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire; the person who runs the Libs of TikTok Twitter account; and Seth Dillon, CEO of the satire site The Babylon Bee, accusing them of causing violence in a new report titled “Online Harassment, Offline Violence.

The report argues, “Anti-equality, online extremists are leading a proactive and coordinated campaign of hate against hospitals and medical providers who offer gender-affirming care for transgender, non-binary and questioning youth.”

The report states it consists of “an informal exploration across Facebook and Twitter” that identifies “24 different hospitals and providers, across 21 states, who were directly attacked online following harassing, inflammatory and misleading posts from Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, and other right-wing accounts.”

Relying on misleading allegations of “lies” and “misinformation,” the report draws a line of causation from Libs of TikTok posting a video from a particular hospital detailing its own practices to inevitable online outrage resulting in angry tweets, emails, and phone calls from individuals, causing the hospital to stop youth-oriented transgender advocacy and/or practices and ultimately resulting in legislative efforts to ban the practices in the first place. The report gives examples of hospitals and doctors receiving hostile or angry communications, threats, and specifically, the false bomb threats against Boston Children’s Hospital.

The report insists, “What occurred in Boston is just one example of coordinated campaigns of hate, violence, and harassment being waged both online and offline against health care providers and children’s hospitals simply for providing age-appropriate, best practice, medically necessary medical care [!!] to transgender youth.” However, its claim of offline violence remains abstract and assumed. It provides no examples of actual violence.

Accusations of Hate Speech

Detailing what it argues is a coordinated campaign to target pro-LGBT organizations, the report notes: “hate speech accounts such as Libs of TikTok or Matt Walsh, a known transphobe at the alt-right news site The Daily Wire, post an inflammatory message full of disinformation about gender affirming care and call out a specific hospital or doctor by name.” The alleged campaign continues with “right-wing politicians looking to rile up the most extreme members of their base join in spreading the same transphobic rhetoric from their platforms, in some cases going so far as to introduce legislation to regulate children’s hospitals and gender affirming care providers.”

The final “stage” of these campaigns involves hospitals discontinuing transition practices for minors or legislative efforts that heavily regulate or ban said practices. The report concludes by placing responsibility on social media companies, arguing, “Social media companies have a responsibility to act and to not be bystanders while angry mobs intimidate LGBTQ+ people and our allies into silence.” Continuing, “Without intervention from social media companies, this will just lead to more hate speech, more threats, and more violence.”

Again, without citing any actual examples of violence, the report’s implication is that all negative interactions, from tweets to illegal activity like bomb threats, are essentially equal. The report’s authors then go further by arguing direct causation between the posting of information and the dangerous response. Their conclusion is that authorities must prevent or punish those posting the original information, which allegedly “caused” the violence.

Attempt to Silence Criticism

While obviously any form of violence or threats against an individual or organization is wrong and should be handled by the authorities, the popular left-wing argument that responsibility falls to commentators is absurd — even more so as the targets of their anger quite literally share the information left-wing activists post themselves. What the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT activists stubbornly refuse to consider is that the outrage and anger are perfectly justifiable. Despite activists’ best efforts, many people reasonably view transgender surgeries on minors as barbaric and destructive.

What these organizations are attempting to do is stigmatize anyone who participates in such criticism by accusing them of contributing to any potential violence that may occur. More to the point, they want to intimidate conservative commentators to prevent them from discussing or sharing provocative LGBT activism, often in their own words, in a way that will result in criticism or outrage. So convinced they are morally justified, they view the natural result of the public viewing this information with outrage and legislative pushback as inherently violent and hateful.

In truth, what we see is the very nature of the democracy they champion in action. A children’s hospital boasts of performing elective double-mastectomies on teenagers as young as 15, as the Boston Children’s Hospital does on its website, and the public is rationally outraged. They express their outrage to the hospital and to their elected representatives, who introduce legislation. The left typically champions public protest and the targeting of organizations with phone calls, tweets, and emails when they disagree with a policy or product decision. Such action only appears to become “violence” and “hate” when the left supports what an organization is doing.

In terms of “causing” things like fake bomb threats or threatening voicemails, the idea that illegal behavior from one individual is the fault of a completely unrelated individual is dangerous and irrational. Libs of TikTok sharing a video produced by a children’s hospital is not a direct link to an unstable person calling in a bomb threat later on. Only the person making the call is responsible. Whatever motivated them to do so is entirely within their control. We simply cannot allow the left to continue bullying critics of their agenda by accusing us of causing violence by doing so.

*****

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

In One Arizona County, Child Protective Services Will Eventually Investigate Two-Thirds of Black Children thumbnail

In One Arizona County, Child Protective Services Will Eventually Investigate Two-Thirds of Black Children

By The Editors

A staggeringly high number of families are subject to child abuse and neglect investigations in Maricopa County, Arizona.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, 63 percent of black children are investigated by the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) by the time they turn 18, according to a joint report published this month by ProPublica and NBC News. For white children, the number is only 33 percent.

One black mother was investigated by the Arizona DCS after she sought medical care when her daughter fell off a couch. Another woman had her children taken for over a year after she left them home alone for 20 minutes. Another was investigated after facing an unfounded accusation that she left her autistic child in the car while she went inside a store.

Of the dozens of parents ProPublica and NBC News interviewed, “almost all described a system so omnipresent among Black families that it has created a kind of community-wide dread… Many expressed disbelief that it was so easy for the state government to enter their family realm and potentially remove their kids from them.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Reason.

Kari Lake Discusses This Morning’s Court Hearing On Bannon’s War Room At TPUSA America Fest With HUGE Crowd Behind Her thumbnail

Kari Lake Discusses This Morning’s Court Hearing On Bannon’s War Room At TPUSA America Fest With HUGE Crowd Behind Her

By Jordan Conradson

Kari Lake joined Steve Bannon’s War Room at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest this afternoon, with hundreds of Patriots surrounding the War Room booth.

Lake’s interview began with the HUGE crowd chanting her name.

The Gateway Pundit reported on Kari Lake’s first major address since the stolen election last night at AmericaFest, where she promised never to give up on her fight to secure Arizona’s elections. In an epic troll on the Fake News Media and the Radical Left, Kari Lake declared, “I identify as a proud election-denying deplorable, and my pronouns are I won.”

The Gateway Pundit has written numerous reports on Kari Lake’s historic lawsuit to nullify and overturn the stolen Midterm Election or hold a new election free from conflicts of interest.

A Runbeck whistleblower revealed in Lake’s filing that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ballots had no chain of custody documentation. This is a shocking and massive violation of the law. Twenty-five thousand ballots were added to Maricopa County’s totals after election day with no explanation of why the number of remaining ballots could increase. Also, tens if not HUNDREDS of thousands of mail-in ballots with mismatched signatures were illegally counted in violation of Arizona law…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Gateway Pundit.

Super Bowl Suppression: Phoenix Gov’t Lets NFL Censor Free Speech thumbnail

Super Bowl Suppression: Phoenix Gov’t Lets NFL Censor Free Speech

By John Thorpe

Want to communicate with the public on your own property in downtown Phoenix? You’d better get permission from the National Football League (NFL) first.

It sounds outlandish. But as Phoenix gets ready to host Super Bowl LVII festivities in February, the city government has given the NFL the authority to censor signs on private property. Now, the Goldwater Institute is stepping in on behalf of a local business owner to demand that the government end this blatant, unconstitutional attack on Phoenicians’ fundamental right to free speech.

The United States Constitution and Arizona’s state constitution both guarantee individuals’ right to express themselves freely, without government censorship—and this includes the right to display signs on private property. Time and again, courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have said that the government cannot decide whether or not to allow a sign based on its message. The government certainly cannot make these decisions based on whether a private third party approves of another private party’s message.

But that’s exactly what the city of Phoenix is doing. In preparation for the Super Bowl, which will be played in nearby Glendale, the city has designated a nearly two-square-mile area (virtually all of downtown Phoenix) as a “Special Promotional and Civic Event Area.” Through February 19, 2023, no resident or business in this city-imposed “clean zone” is allowed to display temporary signage without the approval of the city and two private organizations: the NFL and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee. In other words, the city has banned hundreds of businesses, and thousands of residents, from speaking freely without permission from the government and two of the government’s handpicked entities.

That’s why the Goldwater Institute sent a letter to the city of Phoenix yesterday on behalf of Bramley Paulin, a Phoenix resident and business owner who has been unable to lease out his property for temporary signage placements due to the city’s restrictions. The letter requests written assurance from the city that Bramley and anyone approved by him may advertise on his property without unreasonable restriction and without any input or review by the NFL or the Super Bowl Host Committee.

Helping host Super Bowl festivities is an exciting opportunity for Arizonans. But hosting sporting events should not come at the cost of surrendering constitutional rights. And decisions about the free expression rights of downtown residents should not be delegated to unaccountable private parties.

The Goldwater Institute is leading the nationwide charge to defend free speech—whether by restoring free speech on college campuses or by fighting policies that compel Americans to speak against their will in order to practice their professions. Yesterday’s letter makes clear that Goldwater will never stop fighting to vindicate free speech and restore constitutional limits on governmental power.

*****

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

Twitter Files Reveal A Bitter Irony About The Democratic Party thumbnail

Twitter Files Reveal A Bitter Irony About The Democratic Party

By Deroy Murdock

Before the mid-term elections, Democrats chanted the word “democracy” more often than “and” or “the.” They called themselves democracy’s defenders and relentlessly claimed that if Republicans prevailed, Nov. 8 would be America’s final Election Day, ever.

“I’m worried that if Republicans win in the midterm elections, voting in this country as we know it will be gone,” Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell moaned to MSNBC. “This is not only the most important election, but if we don’t get it right, it could be the last election.”

President Joe Biden accused “extreme MAGA Republicans” of harboring “appetites of autocracy.”

How bitterly ironic, then, that the Twitter Files unmask the Democrat Party as America’s biggest threat to democracy. The social-media giant’s internal records, recently released by new owner Elon Musk, are even worse than feared. Since at least 2016, pro-Democrat officials and their supporters at Twitter blindfolded, bound and gagged democracy, like a hostage in a Mob basement.

Consider this indictment of Democrat crimes against democracy.

Censorship: Twitter aggressively covered up the story of Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell. Twitter customers who promoted this tale of high-level corruption found this news unshared and their accounts sandbagged. The company also muted and concealed the Twitter posts of then-White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, Fox News’ Dan Bongino and other conservatives.

Stanford Medical School’s Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya is among those whom Twitter blacklisted for being skeptical about COVID-19 lockdowns. The same Leftists who “trust science” despise the scientific method, which requires freedom to ask questions, debate openly and attempt to duplicate results. Today’s gagging of researchers and physicians is as anti-science as the 17th Century persecution of heliocentrist Galileo Galilei.

Attacks on the free press: Twitter rewarded the New York Post for breaking the Laptop from Hell story by padlocking for 15 days the account of America’s oldest daily newspaper, which Alexander Hamilton founded in 1801.

Election interference: Twitter’s assault on the Post was odiously timed. It began on Oct. 14, 2020, during widespread early voting and just 20 days before the Nov. 3 election. “The arbitrary blocking of the Post was a significant moment during a critical time in this election season,” stated News Corp, the owner of the paper and Fox News Channel.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was not so gentle.

“Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?” Cruz asked Twitter’s then-CEO Jack Dorsey at a Senate hearing. Cruz called Twitter “a Democratic Super PAC.”

According to a Media Research Center poll9.4% of Biden voters would not have supported him had they known about his son’s high-flying, ethics-bending influence peddling. Without these 7.6 million Biden votes, Donald J. Trump would be president. But Team Twitter would have none of that. So, rather than place their collective thumb on the electoral scale, they plopped their left foot on it.

Abuse of Power: Most shocking, officials from FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (which oversees the CIA) met repeatedly (in the FBI’s case, weekly) with Twitter executives, to entomb Hunter’s story. This transformed Twitter’s despicable private-sector behavior into an illegal, secret-police-like abuse of government power and a brass-knuckled mugging of the First Amendment.

Government lies: Federal authorities, elected and otherwise, ridiculed Hunter’s laptop as “a Russian disinformation operation.” So did 50 now thoroughly discredited former intelligence officers. As the election climaxed, these liars lied to the American people.

Suppression of evidence. Musk fired Twitter’s former deputy general counsel, James Baker, for possible “suppression of information important to the public dialogue” while “vetting” Twitter’s corporate records. Baker previously was FBI general counsel and helped orchestrate the fraudulent, three-year-long, anti-Trump Russiagate witch hunt.

PerjuryDorsey and other Twitter executives told Congress under oath that they did not shadowban conservatives. But they did. This perjury should send them to prison.

Democrats loudly proclaimed themselves bulwarks against the GOP’s clear and present danger to democracy. Meanwhile, Democrat officials, candidates and their friends and donors at Twitter (whose contributions went 98.5% to Democrats in 2020 and 99.7% in 2022) perpetrated censorship, attacked the free press, corrupted an election, abused government power, lied to voters, suppressed evidence and committed perjury.

Republicans were not the culprits. They were the victims.

Musk concluded: “Twitter is both a social-media company and a crime scene.”

If Democrats had any shame, they would rebrand themselves as the Anti-Democrat Party.

*****

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

Revising America’s Original Sins thumbnail

Revising America’s Original Sins

By Neland Nobel

The story of Kennewick Man is a story that branches into anthropology, archeology, history, politics, DNA testing, our legal system, and the frustrations of simply attempting to derive a scientific truth while in conflict with bureaucracy.

Kennewick Man was discovered in 1996 quite by accident by two college students in south-central Washington state not far north of the Oregon border. They found skeletal remains in a river bank partially exposed, in the shallows of the Columbia River.

They called the authorities and the local law enforcement came to the scene.  The sheriff, the country coroner, and a local archeologist who was called in, soon determined they had found something unusual.  It was a complete skeleton, with an ancient arrowhead embedded in his hip. Subsequent carbon dating put the remains at more than 9,000 years old.  That is extraordinarily old for North American finds.

Further, these old remains did not appear to resemble what we call today “Native Americans”, and soon became entangled in the most horrific bureaucratic infighting and legal battles you can imagine.

The skeletal, especially cranial features, seemed different as later DNA tests would confirm.

In the courts, moving at glacial speed, contesting parties such as Native American Tribes, local authorities, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Smithsonian Institution, The Department of Justice, The Department of the Interior, and private lawyers and archeologists fought for a decade over the right to further examine the remains for scientific purposes.  Even the House and Senate got involved in the controversy.

At stake was a scientific discovery and the influence it would have on new theories about how and by whom, humans originally came to North America.

Native Americans did not want the remains to be studied and wished for reburial in line with their beliefs. In part, this is because Indian remains had often historically been abused. However, it also seems their oral history was also on trial.  And, their reticence may also have been an excuse to avoid a sticky question.  Maybe they were not here first?

Thus, the remains possibly endangered not only the standing of their oral history but their prime position in the victimhood pecking order.  What if what we call Native Americans killed earlier inhabitants? They frequently killed their own rivals and took over their territory, but if they wiped out a different people, they could lose their moral high ground against European invaders.  They may have acted just as the Europeans did, they conquered others. Politically, that could be awkward.

It is through the manipulation of white guilt that political concessions can be extracted.  One can appreciate that Native Americans would use what leverage they have but it would seem truth would have some societal value as well.

Meanwhile, the bureaucratic rivalry continued.

The Army Corps of Engineers wanted to take control. They had important bureaucratic turf to defend. They were in sensitive negotiations with native tribes over salmon and other water issues, and seemed disinclined to risk important projects over “a bag of old bones.”

The local county coroner wanted to maintain control of the remains as did the sheriff.  These remains were found in their jurisdiction.

Scientists wanted to study the remains, and the Department of Justice with 93 lawyers on the case squared off against two private lawyers representing the scientists. The plaintiff’s lawyers agreed to work for free, hoping they might be compensated in the future.

As is customary, the full force and wealth of government, multiple agencies, and departments with unlimited resources supplied by taxpayers, mostly supporting government-subsidized Indian Tribes, did battle with determined scientists with little or no resources at all.

At stake was an extremely rare anthropological find and the history of ancient America.

Space does not permit a full recounting of the nine-year legal battle over the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). It finally boiled down to a Smithsonian attached expert and 8 other scientists in a coalition convincing a court the remains were not related to any living Indian tribe today.

As for the Army Corps of Engineers, they wanted the remains returned to the tribes, who in turn, vowed they would bury it again, this time in a secret location so the remains could never be studied.

The Court later ruled the Corps acted in bad faith and fined them heavily for the legal costs of the plaintiffs.  No institutions would come to the aid of the scientists because everyone was too afraid to sue the Federal Government.

But a determined David beat Goliath. The courts ruled the NAGPRA did not apply because the skeleton did not appear to be Native American remains or related to Native Americans living today.

It was appealed all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court and the scientists prevailed. Oddly, having won their technical legal case scientists were given just 16 days to examine the remains.  Twenty-two scientists worked frantically with over 300 bones and fragments under this severe time constraint.

The product of their work was presented in a massive 670-page volume compiled by the Smithsonian Institution and published by the Texas A &M Press in 2014 entitled Kennewick Man.

In summary, the remains do not appear to share much with present-day “Native Americans” as the courts have so ruled.   Likely Kennewick Man is more closely related to pre-Polynesians or the ancient Ainu people of Japan that arose some 16,000 years ago when Japan was more closely attached to the Asian land mass.

A later set of DNA analyses disputes these conclusions although earlier ones supported their conclusions.  However, DNA was not the sole source of their findings.  Suffice it to say, the controversy continues.

Unlike the theory of Asians moving across a land bridge in the Bering Straits, it is probable that ancient mariners hugged the coastline from Alaska, down the coast of British Columbia, and got into what is today the US Pacific Northwest.

As a later article in the Smithsonian put it:

The discovery of Kennewick Man adds a major piece of evidence to an alternative view of the peopling of North America. It, along with other evidence, suggests that the Jōmon or related peoples were the original settlers of the New World. If correct, the conclusion upends the traditional view that the first Americans came through central Asia and walked across the Bering Land Bridge and down through an ice-free corridor into North America.”

In the year 2000, an American named John Turk tested this theory by kayaking from Japan to Alaska and down the coast on what some call the “kelp highway.”  There is considerable food along this rich coast to sustain life.

While the whole story of how North America got settled is interesting on its face, the political and cultural implications are interesting as well.

It makes it difficult to say who is “indigenous” and puts American history more in line with other geographical regions’ history in the sense it is the story of one group conquering another.  Frankly, that is human history in all its messy and confused contortions.  The sea-borne nations of Europe and Asia would at some point make contact with North America.  It would simply be a matter of time and place.

If Kennewick Man is not directly related to American Indians, the special moral position that Native Americans claim is eroded because it is likely they conquered a different people, just as they fought among themselves, and just as they were in turn conquered by Europeans.

Now, it should be said this in no way diminishes the sad conflict between Europeans and “indigenous Americans” that has become along with chattel black slavery, the “original sins” of America.

But just as slavery was hardly unique to America, so is one group of migrants conquering another group of migrants in America is not historically unique either.

The history of man is one group conquering another.  Populations move around. That was in fact the history among American Indian tribes themselves.

So, if it is a sin, it is a sin committed by all peoples and all countries. Neither slavery nor subjugation of “indigenous people” is unique to the American story.  What we did about it may be unique and different, but that is after the fact.

But beyond this, the mistreatment of “indigenous people” and slavery are the two hammers that critics of America use to bash the Constitution.

The argument in simple terms goes like this:  America did not live up to the ideals of its founding documents and philosophy, therefore that founding is illegitimate and so are its founding documents. We should abandon the Constitution and adopt socialism.

This is basically the popular history of Howard Zinn, the American communist whose works dominate our school system.

But the argument could just as well go this way:  America did not always live up to its founding principles and we need to do better by applying those principles more rigorously and consistently.  There is nothing wrong with our principles. The problem is not with the principles but that we often don’t live up to them.

America is not perfect.  No country is.  Wherever ancient stone age peoples came into contact with more advanced civilizations, the outcome was not good for the natives and better for the conquerors.  Whether Kennewick Man is Native American or not, does not obviate the Constitution or the legitimacy of the Founding.

In North America, evidence now suggests that this continent was populated in a more complex and varied way than we knew before.  It may also be the case that what we call “Native Americans” conquered a pre-existing population, just as they conquered each other.

That would not make them evil.  That makes them human, just like the Europeans and everyone else.

No wonder some people wanted the Kennewick Man buried again in a secret location.  It opens up too many interesting questions.

The Word Should Be Banned for All thumbnail

The Word Should Be Banned for All

By Bruce Bialosky

I have been pondering this subject for a long while. I have had discussions with people which have elicited an array of reactions. There is a word that is banned from use for almost every population. Yet, the one population that it would be addressed toward in a derogatory manner uses it regularly. This is the word n_____.

Let’s explore why I believe that black people should be banned from using it also.

The motivation for taking this position is that it has become commonplace for blacks to use the word, particularly in comic routines. One of my favorite current comedians uses the word frequently. That is Dave Chapelle. Chapelle is a brilliant comedian who banters the word around regularly. In fact, when he hosted SNL people complained because he used the word nigga extensively.

Chris Rock who is another amazingly funny comedian has used the word regularly. In fact, Rock had a conversation with Ricky Gervais and Louis C.K. (two white guys) where they bantered the word around liberally. Rock received significant backlash for that.

Most of the current usage was generated from the emergence of rap in the 1980s and the frequent use of the word along with a long list of other choice words that should not be used in a public forum.

For the past fifty years or so since what we call people of a certain skin pigmentation changed from Negro to Black and then some wanted to change that to African American, the word n_____ has been banned from not just polite company, but from use anywhere. If you see it referred to it is the N word. I find the use of these phrases juvenile and counterproductive. For example, when people say the C word, a word I never use under any condition. It is just inappropriate on all occasions.

Yet, black people, certainly not all, use the word regularly amongst themselves because of the license given to them by these public figures.

When I was engaging people about the concept of the column, I was often given lectures about not using the word even for discussion purposes. On the other hand, one person provided me a complex matrix where blacks could use the word and sometimes their non-black friends if they were provided a license.

You may certainly be aware that multiple university professors have been rebuked for even mentioning the word in an educational context. One Philip Adamo, a professor of history at Augsburg University did not back down from his use in an educational forum particularly since he was quoting from a James Baldwin book when he used it in class. Adamo stated, “I see a distinction between use and mention. To use the word, to inflict pain or harm, is unacceptable. To mention the word, in a discussion of how the word is used, is necessary for honest discourse.”

People quoting one of the great American authors for educational purposes cannot use the word “n_____,” but others can in a casual conversation. That makes no sense.

I suggested to people something that was akin to the use of this word by blacks. I asked if would it not be questionable to have Jews addressing each other “Hey, Kike what are you doing?” The word “Kike” is an extremely derogatory term for Jews. If you heard someone say that you would immediately think the person was a raging anti-Semite. Why in the world would Jews take this as their “name” and start bantering it around in casual conversation and expect others not to use the word? I can’t imagine in my wildest dreams Jerry Seinfeld doing a routine that invoked that word. Why is it alright for black comedians to invoke the word “n_____”?

This is an ugly word that denotes real racism toward black people. Black people deserve better from their own people and likewise the rest of us. The word should be banned for all.

Arizona Judge Approves Lake Request to Examine Ballots thumbnail

Arizona Judge Approves Lake Request to Examine Ballots

By The Editors

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has approved Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s request to have ballots inspected as she prepares for trial in her ongoing challenge to the state’s gubernatorial contest.

Judge Peter Thompson on Thursday issued the ruling, which allows the inspection of random ballots in the county ahead of the trial date. The Republican had previously filed a request to do so and Arizona law provides for a candidate challenging election results to demand ballot inspections to prepare. The ruling became public on Friday.

Thompson granted three of Lake’s four demands, allowing the inspection of 50 random “ballot-on-demand” printed ballots, 50 random early ballots, and 50 random BOD ballots marked spoiled. The judge denied her bid to inspect 50 random early ballot envelopes.

All parties involved were granted until 12:00 p.m. on “Friday, December 15, 2022” to submit their choice of ballot inspector to the court. Court documents appear to have erroneously stated the date, as Friday is the 16th of December.

The inspection is slated to begin at 8:00 a.m. next Tuesday and must be conducted in a manner so as not to interfere with ongoing recount efforts and avoid compromising ballot integrity, per the order.

An campaign account for Lake celebrated the ruling on Twitter, saying “Our lawsuit isn’t based on conspiracy or wild speculation. We have laid out a very clear theory about statutory violations and a broken chain of custody. These ballots deserve close scrutiny and we’re delighted we have been granted it.”

Lake received former President Donald Trump’s endorsement earlier this year, after which she surged to win the Republican nomination, but narrowly lost the general election to Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Lake has since contended that election problems in Maricopa County and other municipalities turned away voters and cost her the race…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Just the Facts.

Hillsdale’s Imprimis: Complications of the Ukraine War thumbnail

Hillsdale’s Imprimis: Complications of the Ukraine War

By Christopher Caldwell

The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on October 4, 2022, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on the topic of Russia.

According to what we hear from the White House and from the television networks, the issues at stake in the Ukraine War are simple. They concern the evil of Vladimir Putin, who woke up one morning and chose, whether out of sadism or insanity, to wreak unspeakable violence on his neighbors. Putin’s actions are described as an “unprovoked invasion” of a noble democracy by a corrupt autocracy. How we ought to respond is assumed to be a no-brainer. The United States has pledged vast quantities of its deadliest weaponry, along with aid that is likely to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and has brought large parts of the world economy—particularly in Europe—to a standstill.

Now, whenever people in power tell you something is a no-brainer, there’s a good chance that it’s a brainer. And the Ukraine War is more complicated than we’ve been led to assume.

There are reasons why the U.S. might want to project power into the Black Sea region. But we must not ignore that the politics of the region are extraordinarily complex, that the Ukraine conflict is full of paradoxes and optical illusions, and that the theater we are entering has been, over the past 150 years, the single most violent corner of the planet. And unless we learn to respect the complexity of the situation, we risk turning it into something more dangerous, both for Europeans and for ourselves.

Historic Roots of the Conflict

Putin invaded Ukraine after the U.S. rejected his demand for a guarantee that Ukraine not join NATO. We don’t have to excuse Putin, but we should note that, until quite recently, having Ukraine in NATO was a prospect that struck even many American foreign policy thinkers as a bad idea. These included George Kennan, who was one of the architects of the NATO alliance when the Cold War began in the late 1940s. Kennan was still alert and active, at about 90 years of age, when NATO won the Cold War at the turn of the 1990s. And in 1997, during the Clinton administration, he warned that American plans to push NATO borders “smack up to those of Russia” was the “greatest mistake of the entire post–Cold War era.”

John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, is a forceful representative of Kennan’s viewpoint. Mearsheimer is skeptical of “idealist” crusades, like the one in Iraq that George W. Bush drew the country into in 2003. He thinks President Bush dramatically overestimated the degree to which the U.S. could spread its values and its institutions. In light of present events, he especially faults Bush’s push to bring the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO in 2008.

A lot of Americans in government at the time felt the same. One was William Burns, then President Bush’s ambassador in Moscow, now President Biden’s Director of Central Intelligence. In a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Burns wrote the following:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. [It would be seen] as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze. . . . It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

In thinking about why this would be the “brightest of all red lines,” consider why it was that the Ukraine problem didn’t get resolved at the end of the Cold War.

Russia is a vast country—the largest in the world. It’s not so much a country as an empire. Even today it has dozens of ethnic republics in it. Maybe you’ve heard of Chechnya or Tatarstan. But have you heard of Tuva? Or Mari-El? Or the Republic of Sakha? Sakha is four times the size of Texas, but it disappears inside of Russia. Back in the day, of course, this vast Russian empire was part of another empire, famously referred to by Ronald Reagan as the Evil Empire—that is, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There were 15 Soviet Republics, including Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Armenia, and Turkestan. And that bigger empire was part of an even bigger empire, which included the Eastern European “captive nations” of Poland and Hungary.

When Communism collapsed in the early 1990s, all these countries found their way to independence, most of them peacefully, some of them bloodily. But Ukraine, while nominally independent, remained bound to Russia in a number of informal ways—sometimes willingly, sometimes reluctantly. Russia kept its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, unmolested by Ukraine. Ukraine got cheap gas and desperately needed financial assistance.

Why wasn’t Ukraine able to make a clean break? Not because it forgot to. Not for lack of can-do spirit. It was just a really hard problem. With the possible exception of Latvia, Ukraine was the most Russian of the non-Russian Soviet Republics. Russian has for a long time been the language of its big cities, of its high culture, and of certain important regions.

If you had to give a one-word answer to what this Ukraine War is about, you would probably say Crimea. Crimea is a peninsula jutting out into the middle of the Black Sea. It’s where the great powers of Europe fought the bloodiest war of the century between Napoleon and World War I. It is a defensive superweapon. The country that controls it dominates the Black Sea and can project its military force into Europe, the Middle East, and even the steppes of Eurasia. And since the 1700s, that country has been Russia. Crimea has been the home of Russia’s warm water fleet for 250 years. It is the key to Russia’s southern defenses.

Crimea found itself within the borders of Ukraine because in 1954, the year after Stalin died, his successor Nikita Khrushchev signed it over to Ukraine. Historians now hotly debate why he did that. But while Crimea was administratively Ukrainian, it was culturally Russian. It showed on several occasions that it was as eager to break with Ukrainian rule as Ukraine was to break with Russian rule. In a referendum in January 1991, 93 percent of the citizens of Crimea voted for autonomy from Ukraine. In 1994, 83 percent voted for the establishment of a dual Crimean/Russian citizenship. We’ll leave aside the referendum held after the Russians arrived in 2014, which resulted in a similar percentage but remains controversial.

Enter the United States

With the end of Communism, Ukraine was beset by two big problems. First, it was corrupt. It was run by post-Communist oligarchs in a way that very much resembled Russia. In many ways Ukraine was worse off. In Russia, Putin—whatever else you may think of him—was at least able to rebuff those oligarchs who sought direct political control.

The second problem for Ukraine was that it was divided between a generally Russophile east and a generally Russophobe west. It was so divided, in fact, that Samuel Huntington devoted a long section in his book The Clash of Civilizations to the border between the two sections. But Huntington did not think that the line dividing them was civilizational. He wrote: “If civilization is what counts . . . the likelihood of violence between Ukrainians and Russians should be low. They are two Slavic, primarily Orthodox peoples who have had close relationships with each other for centuries.

The U.S. didn’t see things that way. It backed the Russophobe western Ukrainian side against the Russophile eastern Ukrainian side. This orientation took hold in the Bush administration, during the democracy promotion blitz that accompanied the Iraq War. And in 2004, the U.S. intervened in a crooked election, helping to sponsor and coordinate the so-called Orange Revolution. But the pivotal moment—the moment when the region began to tip into violence—came in early 2014 under more dubious circumstances.

The previous year, Ukrainian diplomats had negotiated a free trade deal with the European Union that would have cut out Russia. Russia then outbid the EU with its own deal—which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine and continued naval basing rights for Russia—and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich signed it. U.S.-backed protests broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. According to a speech made at the time by a State Department official, the U.S. had by that time spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics. And, considering that Ukraine then had a lower per capita income than Cuba, Jamaica, or Namibia, $5 billion could buy a lot of influence. An armory was raided, shootings near the Maidan left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovich fled the country, and the U.S. played the central role in setting up a successor government.

That the U.S. would meddle with Russia’s vital interests this way created problems almost immediately. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovich’s government was corrupt. Unlike many of them, it was legitimately elected, and the U.S. helped to overthrow it.

That was the point when Russia invaded Crimea. “Took over” might be a better description, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. You can call this a brutal and unprovoked invasion or a reaction to American crowding. We cannot read Putin’s mind. But it would not be evidence of insincerity or insanity if Putin considered the Ukrainian coup—or uprising—a threat. That is what any military historian of the region would have said.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the strategist H.J. Mackinder called the expanse north of the Black Sea the “Geographical Pivot of History.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Advisor in the Carter administration, used the same “pivot” metaphor to describe Ukraine in his post–Cold War book The Grand Chessboard. “Without Ukraine,” Brzezinski wrote, “Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

The danger to Russia in 2014 was not just the loss of Russia’s largest naval base. It was that that naval base would be acquired by the world’s most sophisticated military power—a power that had shown itself to be Russia’s enemy and that would now sit, with all its weaponry, at Russia’s gateway to the world. When Russians describe Ukrainian membership in NATO as a mortal threat to their country’s survival, they are being sincere.

American and European leaders, although they deplored the Russian occupation of Crimea, seemed to understand that a Russia-controlled Crimea created a more stable equilibrium—and was more to the natives’ liking—than a Ukraine-controlled Crimea. President Obama mostly let sleeping dogs lie. So did President Trump. But they also made large transfers of advanced weaponry and military know-how to Ukraine. As a result, over time, a failed state defended by a ramshackle collection of oligarch-sponsored militias turned into the third-largest army in Europe—right behind Turkey and Russia—with a quarter million men under arms.

Then, on November 10 last year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed a “strategic partnership” with Ukraine. It not only committed the U.S. to Ukraine’s full integration into NATO but also stressed Ukraine’s claim to Crimea. This was hubris. Now the Black Sea region’s problems, in all their complexity, risk being thrown into our lap.

Our Problems in Ukraine

When Russia invaded, the U.S. stood by its potential future ally, but without much sense of proportion and seemingly without much attention to the stakes. Let us conclude by discussing the complex military, economic, and political problems we face in dealing with the Ukraine War.

Military Problems

I’m not competent to predict who is going to win this war. But given that Russia is much more powerful than Ukraine—both economically and militarily—the need for U.S. assistance will be immense and indefinite, no matter the war’s outcome. Keeping Ukraine in this war has already come at a high cost in weapons for the U.S. and a high cost in lives for Ukraine.

The U.S. is not just supporting Ukraine. It is fighting a war in Ukraine’s name. From early in the war, we have provided targeting information for drone strikes on Russian generals and missile attacks on Russian ships. Since this summer, the U.S. has been providing Ukraine with M142 HIMARS computer-targeted rocket artillery systems. Ukrainians may still be doing most of the dying, but the U.S. is responsible for most of the damage wrought on Russia’s troops.

This is a war with no natural stopping point. One can easily imagine scenarios in which winning might be more costly than losing. Should the U.S. pursue the war to ultimate victory, taking Crimea and admitting an ambivalent Ukraine into NATO, it will require a Korea-level military buildup to hold the ground taken. It will also change the West. The U.S.—for the first time—will have expanded NATO by conquest, occupying territories (Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine) that don’t want it there.

Economic Problems

American policymakers have launched an unprecedented type of economic warfare against Russia. They expect it to be just as effective as battlefield warfare, but to generate none of the hard feelings. At American urging, Russia has been cut off from the private-but-universal Brussels-based SWIFT system, which is used for international financial transfers. And the U.S. has frozen the hard currency reserves of the Russian central bank—roughly $284 billion.

Long-term, these actions carry risks for the U.S. Our economic power—particularly the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, which permits us to sustain deficits that would bankrupt others—depends on our carrying out our fiduciary responsibilities to international institutions, remembering that the money we are managing is not ours. If you are a banker who pockets his depositors’ money, those depositors will look for another bank. The danger to the United States is that not only Russia, but also China and India, will set up alternative systems through which to move their money.

Political Problems

Finally, we should have learned from the latter stages of George W. Bush’s administration that it is hard to build a forceful foreign policy on top of a wobbly domestic mandate. This is especially true of the Biden administration, which seems unable to distinguish between domestic policy and foreign policy. At the one-month mark after the Russian invasion, for instance, the White House sent a message in which President Biden proclaimed his commitment to those affected by the Russian invasion—“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.”

President Biden seems to view Russia’s conflict with Ukraine as one of autocracy versus democracy—the same framework he used to describe “MAGA Republicans” in his militaristically choreographed Philadelphia speech in early September.

We should not overestimate how much Americans know or care about Russia and Ukraine. In August, the Pew Center published a study listing the top 15 issues motivating voters in the 2022 elections. Here are those issues in order: the economy, guns, crime, health care, voting rules, education, the Supreme Court, abortion, energy policy, immigration, foreign policy, big government, climate change, race and ethnicity, and the coronavirus. Ukraine doesn’t appear on the list, and generic foreign policy didn’t make the top ten. That doesn’t look like a level of voter buy-in sufficient for running such big economic and military risks.

A dispassionate and honest discussion of Vladimir Putin’s conduct through the years would find much to criticize. Unfortunately, Putin’s name has been dragged into American politics primarily for the purpose of discrediting the presidency of Donald Trump. And the main thing Americans were told about Putin—that he and Trump colluded to steal the 2016 U.S. election—turned out to have no basis in fact. Since then, Congress has become as much an investigative body as a legislative chamber. Should Republicans end up with a majority in one or both houses of Congress next January, it would not be surprising if they investigated the allegation that President Biden’s family enriched itself by trading on his name with corrupt foreign elites—most prominently those in Ukraine.

The largest problem America faces is distrust, both at home and abroad. Thus far the war’s most important world-historical surprise has been the failure of the U.S. to rally a critical mass of what it used to call “the world community” to punish Russia’s contestation of the American-led world order. In the past few decades the U.S. has developed a method of intervention against those it considers ideological adversaries. The U.S. first expresses moral misgivings about a country and then tries to rally other countries to pressure it economically and to isolate it until it relents. This time, India and China did not join us in isolating Russia. It seems they fear that this same machinery can easily be cranked up against them if they’re not careful. And in fact it is being cranked up against China.

Another factor is surely that, after the Iraq War, other countries have less trust in the judgment of the U.S. as to which territories are likely to be suitable candidates for “spreading democracy.”

Finally, the big transformation that has been predicted for a generation now—that power would shift from the U.S. and Europe to Asia and other places—is now measurably underway. In the 1990s, between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, the U.S. and its Western European allies controlled 70 percent of world GDP; that number is now 43 percent. The West still does relatively well, but not so well that it can count on the rest of the world to rally behind it automatically. Whether in victory or defeat, Americans may be about to discover that you cannot run a twentieth century foreign policy with a twenty-first century society.

*****

This article was published by Imprimis and is reproduced with permission.

A 16,000-Ballot Discrepancy in Arizona? Another Chip Falls for Kari Lake thumbnail

A 16,000-Ballot Discrepancy in Arizona? Another Chip Falls for Kari Lake

By Monica Showalter

Fresh from a court victory granting her the right to examine a random sample of Arizona’s ballots from its skeezy midterm election, Kari Lake has managed to notch another advance in her quest to halt the obviously fraudulent election of her Democrat rival, Katie Hobbs.

According to Just The News, citing the results of a public records request from America First Legal Foundation:

Recently disclosed internal communications between top election officials in Arizona’s Maricopa County in the immediate aftermath of Election Day reveal that they struggled to reconcile a discrepancy of almost 16,000 in outstanding ballot totals.

Recently disclosed internal communications between top election officials in Arizona’s Maricopa County in the immediate aftermath of Election Day reveal that they struggled to reconcile a discrepancy of almost 16,000 in outstanding ballot totals.



Prior to a Maricopa County press conference with Board of Supervisors Chair Bill Gates and Recorder Stephen Richer on Nov. 10, Richer sent an email to Elections Director Scott Jarrett, Gates and others about a significant discrepancy between the county’s estimated remaining ballot totals and the number reported by the secretary of state’s office.

“Unable to currently reconcile SOS listing with our estimates from yesterday,” Richer wrote, showing that Maricopa County estimated having 392,000 ballots left to be counted, while the secretary of state’s website said there were 407,664 ballots left.

“So there’s a 15,000 difference somewhere,” Richer said, although the discrepancy cited was closer to 16,000.

The recorder’s office did not provide comment on the ballot discrepancy by publication deadline.

Who is Richer? It’s a significant question because Richer is nominally a Republican, who ran for the recorder’s office and won on an electoral integrity platform in 2020.

According to research by Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist, he went bad fast, illegally campaigning on government time and dime and resources on a ballot measure to prohibit voter I.D., a very strange thing for an electoral integrity guy, as well as this list of horrible stuff:

Upon election to the county recorder seat, however, Richer abruptly and completely rejected his previous rhetoric and claims, even defending the integrity of Fontes, the man he said was so important to defeat. He now uses his perch as an opportunity to regularly defend the Democrat-run 2020 election in Maricopa County, write op-eds at CNN against the type of election audits he conducted to gain power, draft lengthy screeds lambasting Republican leaders and voters for their election integrity concerns, and push ranked-choice voting and other efforts critics say are disastrous for voter confidence in elections.

He even set up a Democrat-funded political action committee to support Arizona candidates who share his views, a move strongly rejected as unethical by ethical election officials. The Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Arizona just sued him for packing polls with Democrat workers and seeking to bury the paper trail.

He sounds like a nightmare. So it’s interesting that he discovered a ballot discrepancy, and now is keeping quiet about it, not answering any questions from JustTheNews…..

*****

Continue reading this article at American Thinker.

Why Business Should Dispense with ESG thumbnail

Why Business Should Dispense with ESG

By Samuel Gregg

“Milton Friedman’s shareholder doctrine is dead.” Such was the headline of a 2020 Fortune magazine article critiquing Friedman’s famous New York Times opinion piece which, fifty years earlier, had argued that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

The Fortune article was just one of many op-eds, academic papers, and books penned over the past 52 years disputing Friedman’s thesis. Their authors haven’t been shy about proposing alternative models. One approach that has achieved prominence is the stakeholder theory of business, which has swiftly embraced Environmental, Social, and Governance (popularly known by its acronym, ESG) criteria as a means to realize its objectives.

By stakeholder theory, I am not referring to the practice of businesses prudentially assessing their surrounding economic, political, and social environment to identify those constituencies (“stakeholders”) with whom any company must work if it is to realize profit. Commercial enterprises have been doing this for centuries. Nor am I thinking of the need for businesses to reflect upon what economists call externalities—i.e., the costs or benefits incurred by one or more third parties because of a company’s activities. This too is an area that business executives have long understood as something to which they must pay attention to continue operating.

Rather, I have in mind those theories which maintain that the purpose of business goes far beyond profit and maximizing shareholder value. Expansive or pluralistic stakeholder theory, according to Harvard Law School scholars Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, “posits that the welfare of each stakeholder group has independent value, and consideration for stakeholders might entail providing them with some benefits at the expense of shareholders.”

But how do we assess whether a business is promoting its various stakeholders’ well-being? This is where the contemporary emphasis on ESG comes into the picture. It is, alas, also where many subsequent problems for business and society more broadly begin.

Welcome to ESG

ESG is big business. Today numerous ESG-designated funds are operated by investment giants like BlackRock. Scarcely a month goes by without global management consulting firms like McKinsey & Company publishing articles urging companies to make ESG “real.” Major financial advisory services counsel clients on how to invest according to ESG guidelines, while ESG reporting and ratings providers assess companies’ ESG performance on behalf of institutional investors.

In its essence, ESG is a framework that purports to help investors and those claiming stakeholder status understand how well companies are contributing to the realization of goals over and above profit. On the basis of pre-determined environmental, social, and governance standards, ESG promoters claim that investors, stakeholders, and CEOs can discern whether companies are sufficiently dedicated to managing specific externalities like their environmental impact or to integrating particular commitments, such as diversity, into their structures and practices.

What, some might ask, is wrong with this? Who could object to encouraging companies to promote particular values and stakeholders’ interests as they pursue profit? For many people, the claim that you can contribute to any number of good causes while simultaneously making money is an attractive proposition.

The decisions of companies and people’s investment choices certainly have moral dimensions. At a minimum, such choices involve a refusal to choose evil or to formally cooperate with other peoples’ evil.

One of ESG’s many difficulties, however, is that its goals and methods are characterized by an incoherence sufficient to call into question not just specific features of ESG but the conceptual integrity of the entire ESG endeavor. Another ESG problem is its tendency to blur ethics and sound business practices with the promotion of particular political causes. This mindset has spilled over into the outlook of financial regulators, and consequently threatens to facilitate widespread dysfunctionality in these agencies’ operations. Lastly, the adoption of ESG risks corroding understanding of the nature and proper ends of commercial enterprises—a development that has broader and negative implications for society as a whole.

A Failure in Ends and Means

Let’s begin by asking a very basic question: does ESG operate in the way that it claims to? Recent academic analyses of this topic have raised major doubts about this. In their Review of Accounting paper “Do ESG Funds Make Stakeholder-Friendly Investments?” for example, Aneesh Raghunandan and Shivaram Rajgopal asked whether “ESG mutual funds actually invest in firms that have stakeholder-friendly track records?”

Based on a large sampling of Morningstar-identified American ESG mutual funds from 2010 to 2018, Raghunandan and Rajgopal determined “that these funds hold portfolio firms with worse track records for compliance with labor and environmental laws, relative to portfolio firms held by non-ESG funds managed by the same financial institutions in the same years.” As if that is not enough, Raghunandan and Rajgopal conclude that “ESG funds appear to underperform financially relative to other funds within the same asset manager and year, and to charge higher fees.” In short, not only have such funds failed to deliver on many of their ESG goals; they also cost more and provide less by way of financial return.

A similar picture of ineffectiveness emerges when we take a closer look at the composition of ESG funds. In his analysis of the makeup of ESG funds managed by some major investment houses, the Wall Street Journal’s Andy Kessler found that their composition differed only marginally from non-ESG-labeled funds. He discovered, for instance, that BlackRock’s ESG Aware MSCI USA EFT had “almost the same top holdings as its S&P 500 EFT.” Nevertheless, Kessler noted, the ESG-labelled fund cost 5 times more by way of fees. If this was the subtext to Elon Musk’s tweet proclaiming that ESG “is a scam,” he may have had a point.

Another complication involves the stability of the issues that preoccupy ESG investment vehicles. The areas covered by ESG are numerous and fluctuating. Once upon a time, the focus was on products like tobacco. Then climate change became popular, thereby making fossil-fuel industries a major target of ESG ire. More recently, ESG has embraced the universal prominence given to diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.

These ongoing shifts in emphases have generated substantial disparities and disagreement within and between ESG ratings providers about, among other things, what counts as ESG and what doesn’t; how to measure ESG compliance; and how much weight should be assigned to a particular ESG goal (e.g., protect the environment) vis-à-vis other ESG objectives (e.g., promote diversity). In a May 2022 Review of Finance article surveying these methodological and measurement issues, Florian Berg, Julian F. Kölbel, and Roberto Rigobon found that ESG scores across six of the most prominent ESG ratings providers correlated on average only by 54 percent. You don’t need a degree in statistics to recognize that such a low number indicates significant disagreements about which measures and goals really matter. In an earlier 2021 article, Berg, Kornelia Fabisik, and Zacharias Sautner presented evidence of unexplained and undocumented retrospective alterations to the data on which ESG scores were based. Data alterations are not unusual. Not explaining the reasons for the alteration, however, is.

Some major ESG supporters have conceded that this lack of agreement and consistency concerning ESG’s content and measurement methods raises questions about ESG’s credibility. This is not simply because it creates difficulties for assessing ESG compliance across industries and economies. If the content of ESG is 1) unstable or effectively amounts to whatever you want it to be or whatever happens to be the cause célèbre at a given moment, and 2) there’s no universally agreed-upon measure of success, then whatever claim ESG has to coherence and universal applicability starts to look very thin indeed.

This has real consequences for some important topics that investors tend to care about—such as executive compensation. If ESG is to become part of the way that a firm assesses board, CEO, and senior management performance, then coherent and agreed-upon ESG criteria are necessary. Yet in their analysis of ESG-related executive compensation, Bebchuk and Tallarita found that ESG-based compensation disclosures generally offer “vague and underspecified goals, such as increasing sustainability, diversity, inclusion, or employee well-being, without any specific targets or additional information.”

Such imprecision suggests that ESG is unhelpful as a tool for assessing management compensation. Worse, it could potentially be used to diminish executive accountability for profit-performance. It is not a stretch to imagine how executives could appeal to their higher ESG responsibilities to justify lower returns to investors. Nor is it hard to see companies using these broad ESG commitments to curry favor with political leaders who prioritize specific causes. This would only exacerbate the already widespread problem of cronyism and help shift executive incentives further away from creating economic value and towards rent-seeking.

Internal Incoherence and Politicization

Even when a particular issue receives strong affirmation throughout the ESG world, other problems soon become apparent. Consider, for instance, ESG’s present focus on diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in things like the makeup of company boards and management. In ESG literature, diversity, equity, and inclusiveness are treated as self-evident, virtually unquestionable values. A moment’s reflection, however, soon illustrates the perils of this outlook.

Inclusion, for instance, suggests that there is something inherently problematic with exclusion. Certainly, there are unjust forms of exclusion. It is wrong to exclude someone from being considered for employment simply because she is, say, of Asian ethnicity. Yet it is not wrong to exclude an Asian woman from a board position if she lacks the formal qualifications or requisite experience; or has a track record of bad business judgments; or has been exposed in the past as dishonest.

In other words, there are just grounds on which we rightly exclude people, whatever their sex or skin color, from being given particular responsibilities. Prioritizing inclusivity is thus not as unquestionable as ESG marketing pitches often suggest. Treating it as such is likely to lead to seriously mistaken personnel decisions. At present, it is hard to find ESG schemes that acknowledge such common-sense limits to their conception of inclusion.

Or take ESG’s stress on diversity. ESG materials do not present diversity as a species of pluralism, understood as individuals, associations, and communities in a given society living out their freedoms in different ways while being bound together by some common commitments and obligations. Nor is it about promoting individuality. Instead, diversity reflects the idea that, as Peter Wood relates in Diversity: The Invention of a Concept, everyone is defined by membership in social groups and is largely the product of such groups’ collective experiences. That draws attention away from two things: first, our common human nature and the essential equality of all humans qua humans derived from that; and second, the idea that all of us are as much individuals as we are social beings and thus shouldn’t be boxed into particular unchanging and unchangeable categories, whether by custom or law.

These problems surrounding ESG’s present focus on inclusion and diversity point to another difficulty. This is the hard-to-deny fact that many ESG concerns have taken on a political slant—one that aligns closely with what would be conventionally called progressive priorities—and are being used by governments and regulators to advance such goals in questionable ways. In 2021, the Biden Administration announced its intention of imposing new ESG disclosure requirements on publicly traded companies. Upon examining the requirements in question, the legal scholar Todd Zywicki found that “the disclosures advance left‐​wing causes such as environmentalism and race, sex, and sexuality ‘diversity’ initiatives, not issues such as the rule of law, economic development, or affordable energy policy.”

ESG is also being used to shape how regulators expect corporations to address the political pressures to which they are inevitably subject. In his book The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, Stephen Soukup observes that under Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) rules, publicly-traded companies are allowed to exclude certain shareholder proposals if they receive permission to do so from the SEC. In 2019, Soukup writes, Apple asked the SEC to prohibit shareholders from voting on two propositions. One involved the promotion of intellectual diversity. The second focused on enhancing racial diversity. The SEC agreed that the intellectual diversity proposal would not appear on the shareholder ballot but allowed the racial diversity proposition to go ahead.

In short, racial differences were deemed more important by SEC officials than disparities in ideas. That is entirely consistent with ESG’s progressive slant—not to mention the SEC’s stated commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion within its own ranks, which, judging from the SEC Employee Affinity groups listed in the SEC’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategic plan, is overwhelming about ethnicity and sex rather than, say, religious or political affiliation…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Law & Liberty.