The Trump Organization, whose logo is displayed here on a smartphone screen, enjoyed a 12.4-point increase in trust from independents in a new Axios/Harris Poll 100 that measured public perceptions of brands’ trust, character, ethics, and vision, among other things. (Photo illustration: Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/Light Rocket/Getty Images)
Brands that tend to lean conservative experienced significant corporate reputational improvement because of increased trust from independents, as well as from some Democrats, according to a poll published on Wednesday.
Corporate reputations have plunged to their lowest point since before the COVID-19 pandemic, but conservative-leaning companies ranked among the highest, according to the Axios/Harris Poll 100.
Close to two-thirds of the 100 companies had decreased reputation scores, which reflect a brand’s trust, character, ethics, vision, citizenship, growth, and products and services, while three of the 15 companies that rose over half a point were Hobby Lobby, the Trump Organization, and Fox Corp., according to Axios.
“Many independents, and even some Democrats, in this year’s survey are drifting rightward, which accounts for the boost in reputations of many of the more traditional or conservatively-leaning companies,” Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema told Axios. “There seems to be a move to the center on attitudes toward companies and their role in society. I feel this could be an important finding because swing voters are going to determine the outcome of the election, and as of yet are hard to pin down.”
The Trump Organization saw a 12.4-point increase in trust from independents, while Hobby Lobby experienced an eight-point rise in trust among Democrats, according to Axios. A greater number of independents and Democrats believe Fox Corp. and Hobby Lobby align with their values.
🚨🚨Important Exclusive Data – Companies ride a red wave ahead of election – backlash against cultural activism https://t.co/ZHWhv78PY7
Americans of all political backgrounds appear to be significantly skeptical of left-wing corporate agendas, such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), according to the poll. Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch, which briefly collaborated with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023, experienced a six-point drop, while Target’s reputation declined after backlash to selling an LGBT “Pride” collection.
Many corporations are cutting back on or rebranding their DEI initiatives to evade scrutiny as conservatives have pushed back on these programs with legal efforts. Their concern about legal scrutiny ratcheted up after the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina in June 2023.
The rankings were based on a survey of 16,500 Americans, which was conducted between March 6 and 18.
The Trump Organization, Hobby Lobby, and Fox Corp. did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
“Academic freedom” in American universities is nonexistent. There is zero freedom to be anything other than a leftist, which is why nonleftists are an endangered species in academia. Universities only use “academic freedom” to defend their left-wing fellow travelers from criticism and accountability.
There is zero desire for critical independent thought in modern American academia, because modern American academia is little more than a Marxist madrassa used to train and indoctrinate the next generation of left-wing shock troops. Academia uses “academic freedom” in the same way it uses “diversity” — as a way to exclude anyone who rejects left-wing identity ideology. Universities want ideological diversity in the same way bacteria crave bleach. They want actual academic freedom in the same way cockroaches want sunlight.
Never forget that to leftists, words have no fixed meaning. Words are weapons. Nothing more, and nothing less. “Diversity” means they get to hire left-wing, dead-eyed, purple-haired, barely literate white freaks who hate Jews, and black conservatives will just have to suck it. “Academic freedom” means they get to hire low-IQ, left-wing plagiarists whose entire livelihoods depend on the success of the left-wing machine, not brilliant analysts whose research rejects global warming or Covid alarmism nonsense.
Every single left-wing institution has the same rules and the same hiring practices.
At the Pentagon, delusional and drug-addled male perverts who think putting on a skirt and ladyface is the pinnacle of valor get promoted, while decorated combat veterans who reject heart attack juice in the guise of a fake vaccine get fired. On Wall Street, throwing other people’s money at failed global warming plays that will never be economically sustainable will get you promoted much faster than successfully investing in technologies viewed to be a threat by the regime. In Hollywood, a script trashing America as racist and evil will get greenlit faster than Alec Baldwin drawing down on a camera crew. But if you want to make a film praising the American founding? Good luck with that.
And in government, there’s no surer guarantee of lifelong employment for midwit morons than pledging allegiance to whatever delusion the regime is peddling on any given day, because the left-wing machine will defend anyone from anything, no matter how horrific, as long as that person marches to the beat of the regime’s drum.
This is the modern state of America, and it is true across every industry and major institution of power. One election will not fix it. One resignation will not fix it. Removing the rot that’s compromising the entire foundation of this country will require ruthlessly tearing down, fumigating, and rebuilding every single institution that has been infiltrated by the left.
This won’t be accomplished by politicians, or journalists, or celebrities, or hedge fund managers. It can only be accomplished by you demanding it and refusing to give in until the rot has been eliminated. Are you up for it? I hope so. Because if you’re not, this country doesn’t stand a chance.
Sean Davis is CEO and co-founder of The Federalist. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn. He was named by The Hill as one of the top congressional staffers under the age of 35 for his role in spearheading the enactment of the law that created USASpending.gov. Sean received a BBA in finance from Texas Tech University and an MBA in finance and entrepreneurial management from the Wharton School. He can be reached via e-mail at sean@thefederalist.com.
The mob’s stranglehold of speech on college campuses may be beginning to loosen thanks to legal challenges aimed at strengthening the free-speech rights of college professors and students. Just look at Western Michigan University. In 2021, WMU fired adjunct music professor Daniel Mattson solely for writing about his religious views off-campus on his own time. After a remarkably short seven months of litigation, Mattson was vindicated this year on Oct. 31.
Mattson, a professional symphony trombonist, had worked for WMU’s School of Music since 1999. He performed in the university’s Western Brass Quintet, comprised of School of Music faculty members. As part of his duties, Mattson also performed with the Western Winds, a student-faculty ensemble.
In 2009, Mattson returned to Catholicism and left behind his prior homosexual lifestyle. For several years, he wrote articles and spoke at public events explaining how the church should engage with people who experience same-sex attraction. All the while, Mattson strictly compartmentalized his religious activity from his work at WMU. He never initiated a discussion about his religious beliefs or views concerning sexuality with students.
Punished for Christian Ideas
In 2017, Mattson’s writing culminated in Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace — an autobiographical account of his experience with same-sex attraction. He advocated that the church should sympathetically engage people who experience same-sex attraction while offering Catholicism as a better way.
In October 2021, Mattson agreed to perform as a guest artist at the School of Music. A recently appointed faculty member and LGBT activist discovered Mattson’s writings on his experiences with homosexuality and his recommitment to the Catholic faith. She launched a campaign to cancel Mattson’s planned events. As she posted to Twitter: “I won’t be going to any recitals by ex-gay activists, thanks.” She engaged students, faculty members, and DEI administrators in this effort. In the weeks leading up to the recital, there was extensive discussion over email and on social media among faculty and students, many of whom expressed support for the idea that Mattson’s presence on campus was “harmful” to students who identify as LGBT.
The administration’s response to the outcry over Mattson’s religious speech was swift and harsh. Matson was first stripped of his core duties, hindered in important school activities, and finally, WMU refused to renew his teaching contract.
Mattson refused to allow activists to cancel him without a fight. He challenged WMU’s forcing him to choose between earning a livelihood as a world-class artist and mentor for aspiring musicians on campus and his life as a religious believer and witness for conflicted Catholics off-campus.
Violations of Free Speech and Religion
In March 2023, Mattson, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed a federal lawsuit on Mattson’s behalf challenging his firing as a violation of his rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech under the First and 14th Amendments.
WMU’s efforts to cancel Mattson ran afoul of both recent and longstanding Supreme Court precedent guaranteeing the right to religious free speech. Just last year, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a longstanding rule that government action that burdens a sincere religious practice in a manner that is not “neutral” must be justified by a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored to that interest.
In the 2018 decision Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court found that a plaintiff may also prove a free exercise violation by showing evidence of government hostility to religion. Here, the school administration had made its views clear in an email sent to the entire school community. “Mr. Mattson is also a high-visibility advocate for the position that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that is to be avoided. He has stated his position strongly and widely. While he is free to express his beliefs, we cannot ignore the fact that they are harmful to members of our LGBTQ community, particularly our students.”
Another body of law going back to the 1960s prohibits retaliation by a public employer against an employee on the basis of protected speech by the employee, where that speech was directed to an issue of public concern and was not made as part of the employee’s official duties.
Confronted with the controlling legal authority in Mattson’s suit and his refusal to let WMU cancel him so cavalierly, WMU was again swift to respond. Rather than attempting to defend its sectarian or viewpoint-based punishment in a court of law, less than seven months after Mattson filed suit, WMU settled the case and agreed to pay Mattson substantial damages and attorney’s fees.
These are the workings of the leftist cancel mob. Instead of a wholly government-controlled censorship regime, militant activist mobs have informally coordinated with DEI bureaucrats. Together, they have cowed administrators to censor, punish, expel, and fire students and professors who contradicted leftist orthodoxies about skin color and sex. These radicals have met the slightest deviations from DEI orthodoxy with draconian punishments, and sincere religious believers have suddenly been at risk of losing their livelihoods.
Even more rewarding than the financial compensation for Mattson is the vindication in standing up for the rights of all individuals to religious expression regardless of what others think. As more victories like this pile up, we may hope that we’re reaching a turning point in the battle against cancel culture.
J. Robert Renner is the Deputy General Counsel of the Center for Individual Rights and counsel of record for Mr. Mattson.
The board of Harvard unanimously voted to retain the university’s president Claudine Gay despite her public refusal to say that calls for genocide of Jewish students would contradict Harvard’s code of conduct — and subsequent allegations of past plagiarism.
“Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing,” the Harvard Corporation announced in a statement on Tuesday.
Gay kept her position despite both credible allegations of plagiarism and an abysmal performance alongside other university presidents before the House Education and the Workforce Committee. On Capitol Hill last week, Gay along with the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania refused to testify that calls for Jewish genocide violate student codes of conduct — despite their schools’ histories of punishing students for conservative speech.
“We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful,” Gay said. “It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation.”
Gay’s peers offered lawmakers similar answers when it came to confronting students who called for the genocide of Jews at their respective schools. University of Pennsylvania President M. Elizabeth Magill resigned from her role on Saturday after donors responded to her disastrous testimony by pulling contributions. Ross Stevens, a hedge fund manager who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, threatened to withdraw a $100 million donation from his alma mater — and he was only one donor to threaten to pull funding.
Investor and Harvard alumnus Bill Ackman claimed that Gay’s poor performance had cost Harvard more than a billion dollars. But somehow Gay survived both poor reactions from donors and allegations of plagiarism, a chief sin in academia — and it was likely not a coincidence.
Gay is the first black woman to run the university that is one of the nation’s oldest and most prestigious institutions in higher education.
“She assumed leadership with high expectations, but her tenure, which began this summer, has been mired in scandal,” Chris Rufo reported Monday in City Journal. “As dean and then as president, Gay has been accused of bullying colleagues, suppressing free speech, overseeing a racist admissions program, and, following the Hamas terror campaign against Israel, failing to stand up to rampant anti-Semitism on campus.” She landed the top job at Harvard despite having only authored 11 peer-reviewed articles, four of which have now come under allegations of plagiarism.
Gay, however, is among one of the most protected classes according to the left’s hierarchy of victimhood. Firing not just a woman but a black woman would be blasphemous against the religion of identity politics.
“A white male would probably already be gone,” observed Carol Swain, a retired professor from Vanderbilt and Princeton whose work was apparently plagiarized by Gay.
Swain, who is black, told Fox News that “obviously” Harvard “did not have the courage to fire its first black president.”
The New York Post reported Monday night that Harvard University even threatened the paper months ago over the Post’s own probe into Gay’s allegations of plagiarism. Yet, as dean, Gay reportedly forced “dozens” of students to leave campus over violations of academic integrity codes.
So-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives such as the programs endorsed by Gay, however, have begun to replace merit-based standards in academia, government, and business, with physical characteristics becoming a factor in employment eligibility. The vice president and a Supreme Court justice were both explicitly chosen based on their sex and skin color.
In the Soviet Union, residents needed a party card to guarantee their employment and other benefits unavailable to the rest of the country. In America today, special perks are now afforded to those who meet the criteria of preferred classes, from race to sexual orientation.
DEI is welfare for idiots who are unemployable in the absence of identity politics. In the Soviet Union, the party card was a guarantee of employment and perks unavailable to the unwashed masses. In America in 2023, identity politics serves the same purpose. With the right skin…
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Several elite American universities have recently been involved in increasingly dramatic debates over the meaning and value of free speech and intellectual diversity. Two weeks ago, the University of Virginia, my current home institution, was the site of an event sponsored by the state’s Department of Education called the “Higher Education Summit on Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity.” The summit generated pledges by the presidents of every state university in Virginia (and some private universities) to create “action plans” to advance the goals of free speech and intellectual diversity.
Last week, the presidents of Penn, Harvard, and MIT provided plenty of evidence on how they view these goals. They explained to Congress how their understanding of free speech and intellectual diversity did not allow them to protect their Jewish students from a range of actions taken in recent days by students and faculty on their campuses. The university presidents repeatedly hid behind the right to free speech, saying that the Constitution would not allow them to do more to suppress antisemitic advocacy on campus. Outraged by Penn President Liz Magill’s failure to more clearly and forcefully condemn antisemitism on its campus, several mega-donors to Penn announced they would not be giving any more money unless Magill was fired, and after one such donor effectively withdrew $100 million that had already been donated, Magill resigned this past weekend.
At the congressional hearing, Republican members of Congress such as Harvard alumna Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York asked the university administrators why it was unconstitutional for them to protect threatened Jewish students against antisemitic actions — including not just advocacy of intifada and Jewish genocide but targeted threats of violence, and in many cases the crimes of menacing and assault — but perfectly legal for them to have suppressed university professors’ views critical of affirmative action or transgenderism.
This question has an answer, but it is one that the testifying university presidents did not and perhaps could not provide. The answer is this: Free speech and intellectual diversity are inconsistent with the dominant ideology within the vast majority of contemporary American universities. This dominant ideology consists of a set of paired beliefs about the world and what should be done to change it. These beliefs, which I will call the progressive university party line, entail the even more significant and overarching belief that any disagreement with and dissent from core beliefs is a form of violence that must be suppressed.
Core Beliefs of Leftist Universities
The core beliefs of the progressive university party line include at least the following:
1. A system of oppression called systemic racism still permeates the United States. To redress such oppression, some number of people should be hired as faculty and staff and admitted as students because they belong to what are considered oppressed groups. And some such people should be given their positions even if they would be unqualified were they not members of the oppressed group.
2. Beyond its borders, the United States — like other developed countries, such as Israel — has waged a war of imperialist, colonial oppression against so-called people of color, a war in which a primary weapon has been the intellectual framework of the enlightenment, a framework whose purported objective search for truth is simply a façade used to devalue the alternative intellectual perspectives of oppressed people.
3. Without immediate and massive government intervention to stop fossil fuel producers from continuing their carbon emissions and to subsidize the development of wind and solar power, the Earth will suffer catastrophically harmful climate change.
4. The violent crime problem in America is due mostly to widespread legal gun ownership, so violent crime can be at least substantially reduced by severely restricting Americans from possessing firearms.
5. Any government restriction prohibiting a woman from aborting her child at any point after conception is an immoral, patriarchal infringement of her individual rights and liberty. Similarly, an individual’s freedom to use recreational drugs should not be restricted by the government.
6. The prevention of disease and illness justifies virtually any infringement of individual liberty ordered by the state or university.
It would be hard to argue that any of the beliefs listed are not part of the contemporary radical leftist university ideology. Huge and growing university bureaucracies — such as offices of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and sustainability — exist to pursue these policy goals and to ensure that only those people who support these beliefs are hired as faculty and staff.
Danger of Dissent
Paramount among the core beliefs is one that follows directly from those listed: that dissent from any of the core beliefs represents a form of violent oppression that cannot be tolerated within the university.
This danger of dissent is a logical and ineluctable consequence of the listed core beliefs. The danger of dissent holds that to critique any of the core beliefs and espouse a contrary, dissenting view is to inflict harm upon members of the university community. This cannot be overemphasized: Dissent from any of the core beliefs is violence.
To see why this is true, consider just two of the core beliefs. If one opposes government regulations and orders restricting individual liberty to prevent the spread of illness or disease, then obviously one supports the spread of illness and disease. If one opposes gun control measures, then since guns cause violent crime, opposition to gun control causes harm. And so on with all of the core beliefs.
If one holds to the danger of dissent, one cannot justify steps to allow true intellectual diversity and freedom of expression. To hire faculty or admit students who challenge any of the core beliefs is to include in the community people who are prepared to cause harm. And to let them express their dissenting views is to let them harm the community.
This explains why universities are so intolerant of dissent. From their point of view, Ohio Northern University law professor and legal historian Scott Gerber had to be physically removed by police from his classroom because he had publicly questioned that university’s DEI mandate. And Penn Law professor Amy Wax, who has for years publicly and repeatedly questioned whether affirmative action in law school admissions has actually helped the students it is supposed to be helping, must be banned from teaching first years and charged with “major infractions” of university standards — charges which if confirmed by a faculty senate hearing board would trigger “major sanctions” and may include Wax’s termination as a tenured professor of law.
Stopping Oppressors
However, removing dissenting voices from universities does not explain why voices of antisemitic hate, intolerance, and even imminently threatened violence must be tolerated and encouraged. To understand this, we need only to reflect on the core beliefs. Each of these posits that an oppressor group — white males, fossil fuel companies, religious opponents of abortion, gun manufacturers, colonial states such as Israel — is at this moment actively harming people in the oppressed group.
The oppressors are causing harm, and they must be stopped. There is no need to be worried about identifying precisely which oppressors are causing harm, for in the leftist view, responsibility and guilt are collective, not individual. There is also no halfway between opposing and supporting group oppression — one is either all in, working to expel and punish oppressors, or all out, effectively supporting oppression.
Given that it has defined itself around a set of core beliefs positing oppressor and oppressed classes, the contemporary leftist American university defines itself as a leader in a political and cultural war to stop ongoing harm and avenge wrongs suffered by oppressed groups. These universities are commanders in wars against racism, climate change, colonial oppression, and patriarchy. With this understanding, antisemitism is an attack on oppressors, and that is what the progressive university is all about.
Encouraging Analysis and Skepticism
These universities are not wrong in their belief that there is much that is evil and unjust in the world. But the goal of the university should not be to support highly politicized notions of precisely which problems are the most pressing and which policies should be adopted to address them. Instead, the university’s role is to guide students in acquiring the knowledge and analytical tools necessary to form their own beliefs about the world’s problems and potential solutions. Students should be encouraged to be skeptical of all accepted wisdom and to have the confidence and skills to independently advance the frontiers of knowledge.
The American university system is still the best in the world, and across our country, there remain many faculty and staff committed to the goals of guiding students in their acquisition of skills and knowledge. By jettisoning their political agenda, American universities will not only be able to see and respond to the present resurgence of antisemitism on campus, but they will also be able to realize their enormous potential for actually educating students for the future.
Jason Scott Johnston is a law professor at the University of Virginia.
The Left has created a hostile environment on college campuses for those of any color, race, or creed who dissent from its Orwellian groupthink. Pictured: A Jewish student watches a protest in support of Palestine and for free speech at Columbia University campus on Nov. 14. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Sara Garstka, a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation in 2023, received a bachelor’s degree in English in 2022 from Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.
During a hearing this week on the rise in antisemitism on college campuses, Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., said a lack of ideological diversity contributed to the hateful educational environment endured by Jewish students since the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel by Hamas.
He’s right.
A recent poll found that 73% of Jewish college students and about 44% of non-Jewish students have experienced or witnessed some form of antisemitism since the beginning of the 2023-24 school year.
“Since Oct. 7, students who have felt comfortable with others knowing they’re Jewish decreased significantly,” according to the poll results released jointly by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish outreach organization Hillel International.
The poll found that, before Oct. 7, 63.7% of Jewish students surveyed said they “felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ comfortable, but now only 38.6% feel the same.”
Among those testifying Tuesday before the House Education and Workforce Committee was University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, who finds herself under increasing fire from critics. Penn is one of the Ivy League schools at the center of controversy over free speech on college campuses amid the troubling increase in antisemitism, especially since Hamas’ terrorist attacks in Israel.
Previously, the existence of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives at Penn and on other college campuses made it look like universities actively promote safe environments for minority groups such as Jews.
Magill’s DEI statement on the University of Pennsylvania’s website, for example, reads: “Penn is a place with deep-seated values that reflect respect for all and a sincere commitment to service, to diversity in all its forms, and to creating conditions where all can thrive so we can as a Penn community have our greatest impact on the world.”
‘Context-Dependent’
But antisemitic speech isn’t respectful of “diversity in all its forms,” nor does speech advocating genocide promote a safe environment for Jewish students.
Rep. Elise M. Stefanik, R-N.Y., pressed Magill at the hearing on whether “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Penn’s code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment.”
“If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment,” Magill said, adding later: “It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.”
Stefanik told Magill that it was the easiest yes-or-no question to answer. But Magill didn’t say “yes.”
University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill listens during her testimony Tuesday before the House Education and Workforce Committee. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Following backlash for her testimony, on Thursday morning Magill posted a video statement on X stating her intention to clarify and evaluate campus policies on free speech. She didn’t apologize.
Penn donor Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, later withdrew a $100 million donation to protest the university’s stance on antisemitism on campus and Magill’s congressional testimony, Fox Business reported.
“In what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?” Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., asked Harvard President Claudine Gay during the hearing.
At Penn, a clear double standard exists for protecting free speech, alumnus Arjunan Gnanendran told The Daily Signal. Gnanendran said he spoke on behalf of a law professor, Amy Wax, during her examination by Penn’s Faculty Senate for allegedly creating a hostile classroom environment by the way she talked about affirmative action in her course, “Conservative Political & Legal Thought.”
“They’re defending the right of the pro-Palestine students to say things like ‘From the river to the sea’ and call for the genocide of Israelis,” Gnanendran said of university administrators.
“That’s free speech, [but] it’s not, you know, creating a hostile environment for Jewish students?” he argued.
“But then at the same time, they’re saying when Professor Wax talks about racial preferences in affirmative action, that creates a hostile environment for students of color and she should be stripped of tenure,” Gnanendran said. “So, there’s no free speech for Professor Wax, but there’s free speech for the pro-Palestine people who are harassing Jewish students.”
Like others interviewed for this article, Gnanendran is a fellow member of The Heritage Foundation’s internship program, called the Young Leaders Program. Their stories illustrate the existence of the ideological echo chambers at today’s colleges and universities. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Antisemitism on campus is another form of cancel culture from the ideological echo chambers entrenched at today’s colleges and universities, something Grothman alluded to during the House hearing.
For many young conservatives on-campus intimidation for their beliefs can come from all angles: peers, professors, and administrators. It’s no wonder that a new unifying issue for the Left, the war between Israel and Hamas terrorists, could result in hateful speech and behavior toward Jewish students. It already was happening to conservatives.
When some speech is protected and other speech is not, colleges become echo chambers for left-leaning ideology, where “there are things that you are prohibited from speaking about,” Austin Gae said in an interview about the culture on his campus.
Cancel culture “is anything that represses free speech and open debate” and often is characterized by disrespect, said Gae, a senior at The George Washington University in the nation’s capital.
Indeed, cyberbullying, classroom censure, false narratives, administrative neglect, and social blacklists are all methods used on campus to discourage ideological diversity.
Peer-Pressured Into Silence
Gae said he became the target of cyberbullying in a class group chat after saying that then-President Donald Trump didn’t incite an “insurrection” by asking supporters at a rally near the White House to “peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
People who had never met him labeled him a racist homophobe during his freshman year at GWU for something that had nothing to do with race or sexuality, Gae said. The experience prompted him to go silent on his political beliefs for the remainder of his education.
“After that, I decided to not really talk to anyone on campus,” Gae said.
Unless a person can first get to know someone else, and share that he is “a kind, real person with manners and stuff like that,” he said, it’s hard to feel comfortable talking about politics on any level.
For Erin Leone, a junior at GWU, not even a history course on President Ronald Reagan was a safe space for conservative thought. Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” was the subject of study for one lecture in which the professor filtered his analysis through a lens that saw the future president’s speech was “divisive and racist,” Leone told me in an interview for The Daily Signal. When she asked the professor for specific examples of racially divisive language in the speech, instead of answering the question, the professor called on three outspoken, left-leaning classmates to explain how Reagan’s words made others “afraid of black people,” Leone said.
“Does that answer your question?” the professor asked Leone after her three peers finished yelling at her, she recalled.
False Narratives
In another one of Leone’s history classes, she said, a professor claimed that Catholic missionaries in Mexico “made up the Our Lady of Guadalupe apparitions to trick the Mexicans into converting to Catholicism.”
Afterward, Leone approached the professor with concerns that the remarks were racist toward Mexican culture and openly anti-Catholic. The professor, she said, later denied making the remarks.
“If a professor said that about Islam or Judaism, they should be fired,” Leone contended.
In another situation at Penn, the student newspaper The Daily Pennsylvanian neglected to follow journalism ethics and reported allegations as fact to push a narrative that fraternities are places that harbor racism and should be removed from campus. The student newspaper claimed that a person of color was assaulted by a Penn student, Nicholas Hamilton, at a fraternity party. Hamilton had to go to court over the allegations and was found not guilty of assault in Philadelphia Municipal Court, the newspaper reported.
Administrative Neglect
At Nicholls State University in Louisiana, the Student Organizations and Activities Office neglected to process paperwork establishing a College Republicans chapter, former student Cooper Moore told The Daily Signal. This occurred despite the university’s having a chapter of College Democrats as well as a Democratic Socialist Club, Moore said. Moore served as vice president of College Republicans for the brief period the club was permitted to host activities on campus at Nicholls State. That ended, he said, when College Republicans’ “chalking campaign” during the 2020 presidential campaign resulted in a riot in which leftists called for his death and the banning of the club from campus.
On the campus quad, College Republicans chalked slogans such as “MAGA,” “Vote Trump,” and “Vote #1,” this last a reference to a pro-life amendment on the state ballot at that time, Moore said.
“None of it was bigoted,” he said. “None of it was derogatory toward the Democrats or Joe Biden or to liberal students.”
Yet the College Republicans’ chalk was washed away with mops and buckets by some of his peers, and the university hosted a town hall to discuss free speech on campus. In that forum, Nicholls State President Jay Clune neglected to take a clear stance on free speech, Moore said. Nicholls State implemented a policy prohibiting “political chalk” on campus, he said, although Democrat-affiliated clubs had been doing so with no push-back from administrators. The next day, Moore said, he had to be escorted from class by campus security because participants in a Black Lives Matter rally were yelling his name.
The university didn’t follow up to ask about his safety or mental health, Moore said. The only thing the school reached out about, he said, was to say that the College Republicans club was barred from campus because the necessary paperwork hadn’t been filed. But the club did file the paperwork and the school’s Activities Office was at fault for it not being processed, Moore said.
Free Speech at Stake
While she was at GWU, Leone said, two members of a Greek organization were shunned by their sorority sisters after someone found Instagram photos of them taken at a College Republicans event. “Nobody would be friends with them anymore,” Leone said of the two students, as if they were socially blacklisted for being conservative. It’s the same in other student organizations, she said.
“The rhetoric in the groups is that, if someone were to not agree with [liberal ideas], they’d be a horrible person,” Leone said.
The Left has created a hostile environment on campus for those of any color, race, or creed who dissent from its Orwellian groupthink. Since college and university administrators continue to discourage ideological diversity on campus, speech encouraging acts of genocide should come as no surprise. Unless free speech, including dissent from the Left’s doctrines, is encouraged on campuses, our educational institutions will continue to embolden hostility that endangers those with a different view who speak out.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s defense of racial discrimination is falling apart. It’s now well known that Jackson repeated an embarrassing falsehood while defending affirmative action in college admissions. In her Students for Fair Admissions dissent, she asserted that matching Black physicians with Black patients doubles survival rates for newborns, a claim that’s equally unbelievable and factually unsupported.
But this is not the only mistake Jackson made. Her second error shows the diversity-industrial complex’s deep corruption of medicine – and its threat to Americans’ health.
Jackson wrote, “research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly,” for instance, “prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication.” A footnote refers to an amicus brief from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the same source that led to Jackson’s first mistake.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was unable to define the word “woman” when asked at her confirmation hearing last year, made a telling error during her affirmation action decision. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The AAMC brief refers to four studies in support of this claim. Yet none of them examine whether Black doctors are better at treating the pain of Black patients. All four document Black patients’ problems with pain management, but crucially, not one examines the efficacy of doctors of different races. The AAMC either failed to read the research or deliberately created this claim out of whole cloth.
It’s unfortunate that Jackson and her elite-trained clerks were led astray by yet another falsehood. But it’s unconscionable that the Association of American Medical Colleges got the facts so wrong in such a high-stakes case. Most concerning of all, it’s unsurprising for this once prestigious yet still powerful organization. The AAMC, which represents every accredited medical school in the U.S. and Canada, has elevated diversity to an absurd level. It holds, as an article of faith, that medical schools must recruit more Black students, even if that means discriminating against students of other races and lowering standards for admission.
Not only does the AAMC brook no arguments to the contrary, but it also misreads research and perhaps manufactures evidence to support its position. These are the actions of a radicalized organization – one that puts political demands above its stated goal of improving medical education. The AAMC’s faulty justification of race-based admissions, seen in its amicus brief, is bad enough. Yet the association’s extremist turn doesn’t end there.
The AAMC has quietly graded its member schools’ commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Through freedom of information reports, we have found reports from 34 medical schools, detailing their implementation of 89 AAMC-approved DEI initiatives. The list includes hiring and promoting professors based on DEI metrics, creating a permanent DEI bureaucracy, lobbying for DEI policies at every level of government and making DEI a “key learning outcome.” The average medical school has complied with 85% of the AAMC’s wishes.
It’s unfortunate that Jackson and her elite-trained clerks were led astray by yet another falsehood. But it’s unconscionable that the Association of American Medical Colleges got the facts so wrong in such a high-stakes case. Most concerning of all, it’s unsurprising for this once prestigious yet still powerful organization.
The corruption of curriculum is especially concerning. Last summer, the AAMC released new “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies,” which effectively dictate what medical schools teach. Future physicians must now master “intersectionality,” describing “how each identity may result in varied and multiple forms of oppression or privilege related to clinical decisions and practice.” Other mandatory topics include “colonization, white supremacy, acculturation, [and] assimilation.” The AAMC sponsors medical schools’ accrediting body, so institutions that don’t teach these medical divisive concepts risk losing their ability to issue degrees.
The AAMC’s actions are lowering, not raising, the quality of medical education, which in turn lowers the quality of future medical care. By repeating the organization’s false claims about racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Jackson has shined a light on the deeper danger that DEI poses to Americans’ health and well-being.
Since its CEO hailed DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives and a backlash for targeting kids with LGBTQ Pride messaging, Target’s stock price hit its lowest level since the 2020 pandemic lockdowns.
Shares hit a low of $133.42 on Wednesday in early trading and has dropped for eight consecutive sessions, its longest losing streak since November 2018, the New York Post reported.
Its market capitalization has seen about a $12.7 billion drop to $61.6 billion Wednesday since CEO Brian Cornell hailed DEI as having been a boon to business.
“When we think about purpose at Target, it’s really about helping all the families, and that ‘all’ word is really important,” Cornell told Fortune’s “Leadership Next” podcast this month. “Most of America shops at Target, so we want to do the right thing to support families across the country.’
“I think those are just good business decisions, and it’s the right thing for society, and it’s the great thing for our brand.”
Cornell hailed DEI initiatives has being a moneymaker.
“The things we’ve done from a DE&I standpoint, it’s adding value,” he said. “It’s helping us drive sales, it’s building greater engagement with both our teams and our guests, and those are just the right things for our business today.”
But now it has led to backlash, boiling before June’s Pride Month for the LGBTQIA+ community. Calls for Target boycotts on Twitter have been going on since mid-March, condemning pride messaging and LGBTQ clothing for children, and even babies, TheStreet reported.
Target closed at $160.96 on March 17 (topping at $162.43 at 11 a.m. ET that day) since Cornell’s remarks and has only closed lower since, including $133.80 on Tuesday.
Notably, Target’s Twitter account activity has been virtually nonexistent since October, just days after CEO Elon Musk took over — a sign it might be engaging in its own political boycott. The Target boycott has also rejected “tuck-friendly” clothing and merchandise from a vendor who sells items with satanic messaging, The Washington Post reported.
Also, new song called “Boycott Target” by Forgiato Blow and Jimmy Levy surged Monday to the No. 1 spot in the iTunes hip hop chart, increasing the surge against Target in a campaign similar to the one waged against Bud Light.
“Attention all shoppers, there’s a clean up on every aisle,” Blow raps in the opening line. “Target is targeting your kids.”
Bud Light infamously used Dylan Mulvaney, a pro-President Joe Biden transgender social media influencer, to help sell its beer in April, leading to a backlash that has seen a campaign rise against the brewer. Anheuser-Busch’s share price has fallen around $13.63 since it closed at $66.57 on March 31, just a day before Mulvaney appeared on Twitter to brag about the personalized Bud Light cans and partnership. The share price dipped to $52.94 on Wednesday, or more than 20% loss of market capitalization to $91.7 billion.
It is clear that state-sponsored SEL violates the U.S. Constitution in its attempt to infuse the religious science of ‘right human relations’ into education while cloaking it in secular language.
Social-emotional learning will soon become spiritual-ethical learning, and the public school systems will decide whose spiritual and ethical beliefs to teach.
For families that care about raising their children with the moral and religious values of their own faith tradition, questions about which spiritual and ethical teachings should be taught prompt even more speculation about whether so-called social-emotional learning (SEL) should be taught in public education at all.
As the theory adopts spiritual and ethical dimensions, it will amount to state-sanctioned religion.
What Is SEL, and How Has It Changed?
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is a mental-health framework that has woven itself into the very fabric of our education system. Standards, assessments, curricula, and even college and career readiness standards have been altered to teach, measure, and track students’ adoption of SEL’s five core competencies — put forth by its standard-bearer, the Collaborative for Academic Social Emotional Learning (CASEL).
Since its birth in 1994 at the Fetzer Institute and up until 2020, CASEL’s definition of social-emotional learning and its competencies have relatively stayed the same. It described SEL as “the process through which children acquire the skills to recognize and manage emotions, develop caring and concern for others, make responsible decisions, establish positive relationships, and handle challenging situations effectively.”
In 2020, amid the chaos of the global pandemic and racial riots, CASEL quietly updated that definition and its five core competencies. Its new definition of Transformative SEL and adjusted competencies reflect the view that so-called social and emotional learning needs to be taught through a racial and “equity” lens.
SEL lessons and the subjects addressed through them act as both a springboard and smokescreen for activist teachers to have discussions about race, sex, and class that aim to create a critical consciousness in children. Once they are led to believe the systems of society have been set up to oppress specific groups of people, students can be coached to become social-justice activists who show their empathy and compassion by tearing down the systems of society in order to build ones that are more “equitable.”
In this vision, “equitable” means equal outcomes through the redistribution of resources, not equal opportunity under the law. The whole purpose of social-emotional learning has therefore been changed to explicitly “address issues such as power, privilege, prejudice, discrimination, social justice, empowerment, and self-determination” with the goal of developing “justice-oriented, global citizens.”
Spirituality Through SEL
As if this departure from its original purpose were not destructive enough, social-emotional learning is undergoing another revision — one that will seek to address the spiritual needs of students as a part of the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model. Created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), WSCC claims to create a comprehensive school health approach by fostering collaboration among the public health and education sectors through the integration and alignment of their services, far beyond hearing and vision screenings.
These public-private partnerships will take other medical and mental health services that are generally rendered out of school and facilitated by parents and caregivers and instead allow them to be offered as aid provided by the school so the needs of the “whole child” can be met. Spirituality will soon be seen as one of those needs.
🧵The CDC expands into education via the WSCC model of Community/Healthy Schools. They want children accessing psycho-social-emotional, medical, sexual, reproductive, dental, and eye services at school. They are collecting data, expanding Medicaid, and removing parental consent. pic.twitter.com/mDaXv5Nd4U
Recently, there has been an influx of SEL programs in the market that incorporate spirituality into their lessons. The Fetzer Institute, along with Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Dr. Lisa Miller from Columbia’s Teachers College, launched the Collaborative for Spirituality in Education. Fetzer’s support of research on the spiritual aspects of childhood development led to the social-emotional learning program, “What Makes Me: Core Capacities for Living and Learning.”
Released in collaboration with UNICEF and the Learning for Well-being Foundation — a “Whole Child Partner” committed to advancing the WSCC model worldwide — it addresses nine core capacities that are believed to protect and improve the lives of children based on the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Both children’s ‘evolving capacities’ and ‘children’s spiritual well-being’ are key parts of achieving multiple children’s rights, as outlined in the UNCRC. The evolving capacities of the child are mentioned in both Article 5 and Article 14.1 in regard to children being able to exercise their own rights (Article 5), and their freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14.1). Moreover, Articles 17, 23.3, 27 and 32 … recognize spiritual well-being as a goal of these rights alongside physical, mental and moral well-being, among others.
“What Makes Me” seeks to teach spirituality through SEL as “a more active and engaged process in which some persons choose to shape and create a way of knowing and living that may or may not draw on religion” and as something that involves the conscious choice to explore life’s “big questions.”
The UNCRC also states that children have sexual rights from birth and should be able to learn about sexual behaviors as young as age 5 through Comprehensive Sexuality Education, including the idea that sex is not binary or immutable. One must wonder if the “spirituality” they intend to impart to children as a fundamental “right” is a wide acceptance of sexual variance and the offering of an alternative belief system that differs from their familial, cultural, and religious beliefs.
“What Makes Me” is not the only SEL program incorporating spirituality that Fetzer invests in. It recently pledged $1 million to the QUESTion Project, started by mentalist and owner of The Open Future Institute, Gerard Senehi. It asks students questions such as: “Who am I?” “What is my purpose?” “What does a good life look like?” If administered in a public school using taxpayer money, these questions violate the separation of church and state and cross the line into the government using education to institute an unconstitutional state-sanctioned religion. SEL programs such as these meet the federal government’s definition of a religion, which is a “comprehensive belief system that addresses the fundamental questions of human existence, such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, and the nature of good and evil, and that gives rise to duties of conscience.”
The First Amendment commands that the government can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Considering the esoteric and mystical religious roots of social-emotional learning and CASEL through the Fetzer Institute, and its broadening into explicitly teaching “spirituality,” it is clear that state-sponsored SEL violates the U.S. Constitution in its attempt to infuse the religious science of “right human relations” into education while cloaking it in secular language.
The role and responsibility of molding and shaping a child’s moral character does not belong in public classrooms backed by organizations with political or societal agendas.
It should remain in the loving arms of the family, where it has been since the dawn of time.
Lisa Logan is the host of the YouTube Channel Parents of Patriots and author of the Substack Education Manifesto. As a wife, mother and patriot, she has made it her mission to expose the sinister agenda behind social-emotional learning programs to save our children and the future of our country.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 were the largest and most successful shakedown in American history. These “mostly peaceful protests” — which burned more than 200 American cities and wreaked more than $2 billion in damages — achieved more than anyone could have predicted: changes in laws, private sector policies, and perhaps most importantly, a historic transfer of wealth to racial and leftwing causes. As a result, American corporations gave or pledged more than $83 billion to either BLM or BLM-related causes.
We created a database tracking contributions and pledges made to the BLM movement and related causes, which we define as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLM’s agenda, and which were made in the wake of the BLM riots of 2020. To date, our data spans more than 400 companies and $83 billion in pledges and contributions.
The famed consulting firm McKinsey and Company thinks the number is far larger. They calculated that from May 2020 to October 2022 companies pledged about $340 billion “to racial equity, specifically for Black Americans after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.” Our number is conservative by comparison. But unlike McKinsey, we provide details about the pledges and contributions of specific companies.
We are surprised at some of the incredulity in our calculations. So too is BLM, which suggests that objections to wealth transfers of this scale are rooted in “white supremacy,” and “a pathology that Black organizations don’t deserve to be funded.”
BLM called for reparations. In a sense, they succeeded, as these reparations were paid out to BLM itself (approximately $122 million) and to its vast NGO archipelago and other racialized causes and schemes under various names.
While the money was given or pledged in different ways, it was unmistakable for so-called “racial justice.” Sometimes this meant cash transfers to partners of BLM, like the Color of Change, the NAACP, the Equal Justice Initiative, and the ACLU.
Sometimes it meant cash or pledges to other “reparative” initiatives including race-based, discriminatory hiring programs; race-based, sub-prime lending; race-based scholarships; and partisan voter initiatives. Sometimes it meant Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which are the polite versions of BLM calibrated to middle-class, middle-management tastes. The DEI ideology disagrees with BLM in few ways, if any.
DEI and BLM share one mission: to punish white America, through different means. The latter through riots and pressure campaigns, the former through preferential hiring and promotion of members of protected groups. Both aim to redistribute honor, privileges, and money to black Americans. Both are extorting special privileges and money by using white guilt.
Moreover, both are attempting to do so by cultural revolution, and both stand openly against meritocracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and individual rights. Correctly understood, DEI is an expression of BLM’s broader agenda.
We already know the exorbitant amount of money given or pledged by large banks like JPMorgan ($30 billion), Bank of America ($18 billion), and Silicon Valley Bank ($70 million) in the wake of the 2020 BLM riots to subsidized and sub-prime race-based lending, race-based investment targeting, supply chain diversity initiatives, and nonprofits advancing racial justice.
But BLM was so effective that even seemingly middle-America companies shelled out big. For example, Cargill, the Minnesota-based food producer, launched its “Black Farmer Equity Initiative,” a redistributive program that attributes declining numbers of black farmers to “the legacy of systemic racism” and seeks to “dismantle Anti-Black racism” and “operationalize equity across the food and agriculture system.” Cargill pledged $11 billion to the initiative through 2030.
Kroger, a ubiquitous neighborhood grocery chain, spent at least $13 million to advance racial division, including $5 million toward its “Framework for Action: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiative and a $500,000 contribution to LISC’s Black Economic Development Fund, a discriminatory investment fund that promotes BLM. Kroger also partnered with the discriminatory, race-based hiring platform OneTen, which aims to “hire, promote, and advance one million Black individuals who do not have a four-year degree into family-sustaining careers over the next ten years.”
Caterpillar, the producer of heavy equipment, donated $500,000 each to the NAACP and the Equal Justice Initiative. It too partnered with OneTen. John Deere donated $1 million to the NAACP, again, an official partner of BLM.
Defense contractors, traditionally neutral and dedicated to keeping America safe, also submitted to BLM’s demands. Northrop Grumman donated $1 million to the NAACP and an additional $1 million to organizations promoting social justice as part of an employee charitable gift matching program. It also partnered with OneTen.
Raytheon pledged $25 million over five years to “advance racial justice, empowerment, and career readiness in underserved communities.” The commitment includes donations to the NAACP, Equal Justice Initiative, and National Urban League; community outreach; public policy lobbying; and a supplier diversity initiative.
Boeing pledged a minimum of $25 million by 2023 toward racial “equity” and “social justice.” In 2020, it contributed $15.6 million to organizations addressing “racial inequity,” including $1 million to the Equal Justice Initiative.
The list goes on, and should be further explored by journalists in order to understand the full extent of the shakedown. By caving to BLM, American companies not only became the tools of radicals but also laid the groundwork for future violence and extortion.
The Center for the American Way of Life is a branch of The Claremont Institute. The mission of The Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
Little more than a decade ago, DEI was just another arcane acronym, a clustering of three ideas, each to be weighed and evaluated against other societal values. The terms diversity, equity, and inclusion weren’t yet being used in the singular, as one all-inclusive, non-negotiable moral imperative. Nor had they coalesced into a bureaucratic juggernaut running roughshod over every aspect of national life.
They are now.
Seemingly in unison, and with almost no debate, nearly every major American institution — including federal, state, and local governments, universities and public schools, hospitals, insurance, media and technology companies, and major retail brands — has agreed that the DEI infrastructure is essential to the nation’s proper functioning.
From Amazon to Walmart, most major corporations have created and staffed DEI offices within their human resources bureaucracy. So have sanitation departments, police departments, physics departments, and the departments of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, and energy. Organizations that once argued against DEI now feel compelled to institute DEI training and hire DEI officers. So have organizations that are already richly diverse, such as the National Basketball Association and the National Football League.
Many of these offices in turn work with a sprawling network of DEI consulting firms, training outfits, trade organizations, and accrediting associations that support their efforts.
“Five years ago, if you said ‘DEI,’ people would’ve thought you were talking about the Digital Education Initiative,” Robert Sellers, University of Michigan’s first chief diversity officer, said in 2020. “Five years ago, if you said DEI was a core value of this institution, you would have an argument.”
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is an intentionally vague term used to describe sanctioned favoritism in the name of social justice. Its Wikipedia entry indicates a lack of agreement on the definition, while Merriam-Webster.com and the Associated Press online style guide have no entry (the AP offers guidance on related terms). Yet however defined, it’s clear DEI is now much more than an academic craze or corporate affectation.
“It’s an industry in every sense of the word,” says Peter Schuck, professor emeritus of law at Yale. “My suspicion is that many of the offices don’t do what they say. But they’re hiring people, giving them titles and pretty good money. I don’t think they do nothing.”
It’s difficult to know how large the DEI Industrial Complex has become. The Bureau of Labor Statistics hasn’t assessed its size. Two decades ago, MIT professor Thomas Kochan estimated that diversity was already an $8 billion-a-year industry. Yet along with the addition of equity, inclusion, and like terms, the industry has surely grown an order of magnitude larger. Six years ago, McKinsey and Company estimated that American companies were spending $8 billion a year on diversity training alone. DEI hiring and training have only accelerated in the years since.
“In the scope and rapidity of institutional embrace,” writes Marti Gurri, a former CIA analyst who studies media and politics, “nothing like it has transpired since the conversion of Constantine.”
Yet in our time, no Roman Emperor has demanded a complete cultural transformation. No law was passed mandating DEI enactment. No federal court ruling has required its implementation. There was no clarion call on the order of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warning. No genuine public crisis matched the scale of the response.
The sources of this transformation are both deep and fairly recent. On one level, they can be traced back to the egalitarian movements that have long shaped American history — from the nation’s founding, through the Civil War and Reconstruction to the battles for women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage. In other ways, the rapid transformation can seem no more explicable than an eccentric fashion trend, like men of the late 18th century wearing periwigs. However, a few pivot points of recent history bent its arc in DEI’s direction.
The push for affirmative action is the most obvious influence, a program first conceived during the Reconstruction era but then abandoned for nearly a century. Although triumphs for social justice, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights acts of the late 1950s and 1960s didn’t stop discrimination; the country would need to take more affirmative steps toward assisting minority groups and achieving more equitable outcomes, proponents argued. A controversial policy from the start (with the Supreme Court expected to curb its use in college admissions this term), affirmative action was further complicated by immigration reforms that allowed for more non-European immigrants, setting off a seismic demographic shift that continues to reverberate.
The diversity movement of the early 1990s was in part an attempt to capitalize on the new multicultural reality. Stressing individual and institutional benefits rather than moral failings, early corporate diversity training programs hewed to traditional values of equality and meritocracy. Creating a diverse workplace, R. Roosevelt Thomas wrote in the Harvard Business Review, in 1990, “should always be a question of pure competence and character unmuddied by birth.”
But in other ways, the recent explosion of DEI initiatives reflects shortcomings of earlier efforts, as suggested by the headline of a 2016 article in the Harvard Business Review, “Why Diversity Fails.” Even as high-achieving first- and second-generation immigrants have thrived in certain industries, particularly STEM fields, people of color remain scarce in senior institutional positions. There is also the deeper issue of what many in the post-George Floyd era have taken to calling systemic or structural racism, citing major disparities for black Americans in education, health care, homeownership, arrests, incarceration, and household wealth.
More recently, a spate of widely publicized police killings of unarmed African Americans has galvanized a growing belief, especially among progressives and especially since Donald Trump’s election, that America is an irredeemably racist nation. In 2020, in the wake of the Floyd murder and in advance of a fraught election, a moral panic set in. Having increased their ranks, social justice entrepreneurs and bureaucrats were poised to implement an ideological agenda and compound their institutional power.
Although no hard numbers exist on the exact size of the industry, the “DEIfication” of America is clear. From Rochester, New York, to San Diego, California, cash-strapped municipalities have found the funds to staff DEI offices. Startups and small companies that once relied on their own employees to promote an inclusive culture now feel compelled to hire diversity consultants and sensitivity trainers to set them straight.
At Ohio State University, for example, the average DEI staff salary is $78,000, according to public information gathered by economist Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute — about $103,000 with fringe benefits. Not to be outdone by its Big Ten conference rival, the University of Michigan pays its diversity officers $94,000 on average — about $124,000 with benefits. Until he retired from the position last summer, Michigan’s chief diversity officer, Robert Sellers, was paid over $431,000 a year. His wife, Tabbye Chavous, now has the job, at the vice provost rank and a salary of $380,000.
For smaller organizations that cannot afford a full-time equity officer, there are other options for shoring up social justice bona fides — namely, working with any of the hundreds of DEI consulting agencies that have risen like mushrooms after a night’s rain, most of them led by “BIPOC” millennials. With some firms, the social justice goals are unmistakable. The Racial Equity Institute is “committed to the work of anti-racist transformation” and challenging “patterns of power” on behalf of big-name clients like the Harvard Business School, Ben & Jerry’s, and the American Civil Liberties Union. With others, the appeal has less to do with social change than exploring marketing opportunities and creating a “with-it” company culture, where progressive politics complement the office foosball tables and kombucha on tap.
“Diversity wins!” declares the management consultancy McKinsey & Company. Certainly diversity officers have been winning, although opposition is building in Florida and elsewhere, where the wider woke agenda that includes DEI has advanced. Even minimally trained practitioners are in high demand, and signs of their influence abound.
Major tech companies like Google publicly chart the “Black+ and Latinx+” people they’ve hired and assure the public that Artificial Intelligence will prioritize the DEI political agenda. ChapGPT, an AI model that can generate remarkably cogent writing, has been designed with a liberal bias, summarily rejecting requests that don’t conform to the algorithm’s notions of “positivity, equality and inclusivity.”
In education, college students are required to take DEI-prescribed courses. Community college employees in California are evaluated on their DEI competencies. Loyalty oaths to the DEI dogma are demanded of professors. Applicants to tenure-track positions, including those in math and physics, are rejected out of hand if their mandatory DEI statements are found wanting. Increasingly, DEI administrators are involved in hiring, promotion, and course content decisions.
“Academic departments are always thinking, ‘We need to run this by Diversity,’” says Glenn Ricketts, public affairs officer for the National Association of Scholars.
The industry’s reach can also be seen in the many Orwellian examples of exclusion in the name of inclusion, of reprisals in the name of tolerance. Invariably, they feature an agitated clutch of activists browbeating administrators and executives into apologizing for an alleged trespass against an ostensibly vulnerable constituency. When that has been deemed insufficient or when senior executives have sensed a threat to their own legitimacy, they’ve offered up scapegoats on false or flimsy pretexts. That might be a decades-long New York Times reporter, a head curator at a major art museum, an adjunct art history professor, a second-year law student, or a janitor at a pricey New England college. (The list is long.)
Often enough, the inquisitions have turned into public relations debacles for major institutions. But despite the intense criticism and public chagrin, the movement marches on.
The expansion “happened gradually at first, and people didn’t recognize the tremendous growth,” Perry says. “But after George Floyd, it really accelerated. It became supercharged. And nobody wanted to criticize it because they would been seen as racists.”
Not playing along with the DEI protocols can end an academic career. For example, when Gordon Klein, a UCLA accounting lecturer, dismissed a request to grade black students more leniently in 2020, the school’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion office intervened to have him put on leave and banned from campus. A counter-protest soon reversed that. However, when Klein also declined to write a DEI statement explaining how his work helped “underrepresented and underserved populations,” he was denied a standard merit raise, despite excellent teaching evaluations. (He is suing for defamation and other alleged harms.)
Scores of professors and students have also been subject to capricious, secretive, and career-destroying investigations by Title IX officers, who work hand-in-glove with DEI administrators, focusing on gender discrimination and sexual harassment. As writer and former Northwestern University film professor Laura Kipnis recounts in “Unwanted Advances,” individuals can be brought up on charges without any semblance of due process, as she was, simply for “wrongthink” — that is, for having expressed thoughts that someone found objectionable.
With activist administrators assuming the role of grand inquisitors, “the traditional ideal of the university — as a refuge for complexity, a setting for free exchange of ideas — is getting buried under an avalanche of platitudes and fear,” she writes. And it would appear that students and professors would have it no other way. By and large, they want more bureaucratic intervention and regulations, not less.
As more institutions create DEI offices and hire ever more managers to run them, the enterprise inevitably becomes self-justifying. According to Parkinson’s Law, bureaucracy needs to create more work, however unnecessary or unproductive, to keep growing. Growth itself becomes the overriding imperative. The DEI movement needs the pretext of inequities, real or contrived, to maintain and expand its bureaucratic presence. As Malcolm Kyeyume, a Swedish commentator and self-described Marxist, writes: “Managerialism requires intermediation and intermediation requires a justifying ideology.”
Ten years ago, Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg found that the ratio of administrators to students had doubled since 1975. With the expansion of DEI, there are more administrators than ever, most of whom have no academic background. On average, according to a Heritage Foundation study, major universities across the country currently employ 45 “diversicrats,” as Perry calls them. With few exceptions, they outnumber the faculty in history departments, often two or three to one.
At Michigan, Perry wasn’t able to find anyone with the words “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion” in his job title until 2004; and for the next decade, such positions generally remained centralized at the provost level, working for the university as a whole. But in 2016, Michigan president Mark Schlissel announced that the university would invest $85 million in DEI programs. Soon after, equity offices began to “metastasize like a cancer,” Perry says, across every college, department, and division, from the college of pharmacy to the school’s botanical garden and arboretum, where a full-time DEI manager is now “institutionalizing co-liberatory futures.” All the while, black enrollment at Michigan has dropped by nearly 50 percent since 1996.
Despite the titles and the handsome salaries, most DEI administrative positions are support staff jobs, not teaching or research positions. In contrast with the provisions of Title IX, DEI is not mandated by law; it is entirely optional. DEI officers nevertheless exert enormous influence, in part because so few people oppose them. The thinking seems to be that if you’re against the expanding and intrusive diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda, you must be for the opposite — discrimination, inequality, and exclusion.
“By telling themselves that they’re making the world a better place, they get to throw their weight around,” says Ricketts. “They have a lot of money, a lot of leverage, and a lot of people who just don’t want to butt heads with them — people who just want to go along to get along. People who are thinking, ‘If we embrace DEI, nobody can accuse us of being racist or whatever.’ They’re trying to cover their backsides.”
Some organizations, it seems, are merely trying to keep up with cultural trends.
Consider Tucson, Arizona, where diversity is not a buzzy talking point but an everyday reality. With a population that is 44 percent Hispanic, 43 percent white, and only 4.6 percent black, the city has had no major racial incidents in decades. Yet like hundreds of others communities, Tucson suddenly decided in direct response to the Floyd murder 1,600 miles away that it needed an office of equity.
To many observers, it seemed that the city was just “getting jiggy with it,” pretending to solve a problem that didn’t exist. After a two-year search, it hired Laurice Walker, the youngest chief equity officer in the country, at age 28, with a salary of $145,000 — nearly three and a half times what Tucson’s mayor, Regina Romero, earns.
Not that the mayor is complaining. “I think this position is about putting an equity lens into all that we do,” Romero said in May, by which she means — well, nobody is quite sure what “equity” means, particularly with respect to federal legislation clearly prohibiting positive and negative discrimination alike.
But trying to get out in front of the DEI train can also result in getting run over by it.
When the city council of Asheville, North Carolina, hired Kimberlee Archie as its first equity and inclusion manager, its members probably didn’t anticipate being accused of having a “white supremacy culture.” After all, city manager Debra Campbell is black, as are three of the seven women making up the city council. The council had cut police funding and unanimously approved a reparations resolution.
Archie nevertheless complained that her colleagues still weren’t doing enough to advance racial equity. “What I describe it as is kind of like the bobblehead effect,” she said in 2020. “We’d be in meetings … and people’s heads are nodding as if they are in agreement. However, their actions didn’t back that up.”
The drama in western North Carolina illustrates a dilemma that organizations face going forward. They can pursue an aggressive political agenda in which white supremacy is considered the country’s defining ethos (per The New York Times’ “1619 Project“) and present discrimination as the only remedy to past discrimination (see Ibram X. Kendi). Or they take the path of least resistance, paying rhetorical tribute to DEI enforcers as the “bobbleheads” that Archie disparages but doing little more than that. After all, they still have universities, businesses, and sanitation departments to run, alumni and investors to satisfy, students to teach, research to pursue, roads to be paved, sewage to be treated, costs to be minimized, and profits to be maximized.
Perhaps, too, senior administrators and executives are beginning to realize that, despite the moral panic of 2020, the most culturally diverse country in the world might not be irredeemably racist, even if it’s no longer acceptable to say so. The United States twice elected an African American man named Barack Hussein Obama as president. His first attorney general was a black man, who would be replaced by a black woman. His vice president would pick a woman of mixed race as his running mate. The mayors of 12 of the 20 largest U.S. cities are black, including the four largest cities.
Likewise, many of the people whom Americans most admire — artists, athletes, musicians, scientists, writers — are black. Lately, most winners of MacArthur Foundation “genius” grants are people of color. Gay marriage is legal, and enjoys wide public support, even among conservatives. The disabled, neurodivergent, and gender-divergent are applauded for their courage and resilience. And nonwhite groups, particularly Asians, Latinos, and African immigrants, have been remarkably upwardly mobile (often without official favoritism).
Clearly, troubling disparities persist for African Americans. What’s much less clear is that racism, systemic or not, remains the principal cause of these disparities or that a caste of equity commissars will reverse them. And now, it would seem that narrowing these disparities runs counter to their self-interest.
“I don’t want to deny that there’s genuine goodwill on the part of some of these programs,” says Prof. Schuck, stressing that he hasn’t examined their inner workings. “But some of these conflicts are not capable of being solved by these gestures. They have to justify their own jobs, their own budgets, however. And that creates the potential for a lot of mischief. They end up trafficking in controversy and righteousness, which produces the deformities we’ve been seeing in policies and conduct.”
Still, to hear DEI officers, it’s they who are beleaguered and overwhelmed. Yes, they have important-sounding jobs and rather vague responsibilities. They are accountable to nobody, really. Rather than fighting “the man,” they now are the man, or at least the gender-neutral term for man in this context. But this also means that they are starting to catch flak, particularly as the evidence mounts that the institutions they advise and admonish aren’t actually becoming more fair, open, and welcoming. They’re not even becoming more ethnically diverse.
Like other DEI advocates, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education has declined to answer questions for this article. Its officers are too busy traveling to conferences to do so, a spokeswoman said.
But at a recent association meeting, Anneliese Singh of Tulane University invoked Rosa Parks’ refusal to take a back seat to discrimination. Although Parks was a housekeeper and diversicrats have comfortable university sinecures, their struggles are analogously distressing, Singh suggested. The latter, too, are on the “front lines” in a harrowing war. However, she said, her colleagues needed to remember what mattered most: Looking out for themselves.
“It is not self-indulgence,” she said, now quoting the feminist and civil rights activist Audre Lord. “It is self-preservation. And that is an act of political warfare.”
For the moment, it’s a war Singh and her DEI colleagues are clearly winning.
This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations.
The Pentagon’s investigation into the U.S. military in 2021 found about 100 individuals engaged in extremist activities out of a force of 2 million. It appears investigators were looking in the wrong place. The search for extremists might have yielded better results had they examined the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), the government agency that administers K-12 education to the children of military personnel.
The Claremont Institute’s recently released report“Grooming Future Revolutionaries” describes shocking indoctrination taking place at overseas schools. It is a must-read, especially for military parents of the nearly 70,000 children in these schools.
I am a military spouse and the mother of a former DODEA student. The particular teacher training that was the focus of Claremont’s report is the reason, in part, why I lost all trust in the system.
In May 2021, I saw that DODEA would be holding an “Equity and Access Summit” for teachers and administrators. Knowing that “equity” means different things to different people, I wanted to get a sense of what it meant at DODEA. When I managed to gain access to the recordings, I was absolutely floored by what I saw and heard.
As the Claremont report shows, the summit featured hours of teacher training steeped in critical race and gender identity theories.
Claremont released a video of summit clips in which a principal talks about a student who felt like he’d done something wrong because he’s a “young, white male.” The teacher said she didn’t know what to tell him — but she seemed pleased with the breakthrough. Perhaps she was just following the lead of DODEA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) chief Kelisa Wing, who is currently under investigation by DOD for a history of disparaging comments toward white people.
Video Evidence of Teachers Pushing CRT
The report also highlights literature teacher Gregory DeJardin’s presentation called “Combating 1- Sided Narratives (Decolonize the Curriculum).” DeJardin insists teachers become social activists and interviewed several students in his class at Vicenza High School in Italy about their difficulties with “majority culture.” It was painfully apparent in their answers that they were parroting his dogma, as one student said: “[School] is getting better about being more diverse and not taking a very normative perspective but there are definitely issues and I feel like it is still incredibly skewed to the white, male, heterosexual and Protestant gaze.”
Betty Roberts, an educator at Robinson Barracks Elementary School in Germany, talked about critical literacy. She wants her students to look deeply into textbook versions of events to find hidden biases. She asks her students questions like: “Is the American Revolution still being fought today?” She presses further and asks if the American Revolution was just a “transition from one group of rich white men to another group of rich white men.” Roberts goes on to express her gratefulness to the teachers’ union for its training on white fragility because she recognized her need for cultural humility.
Normalizing Transgenderism
Aside from the relentless instruction on anti-racism and white privilege, a clear effort was underway to normalize transgender identities and the notion of a gender spectrum. Genevieve Chavez and Lindsey Bagnaschi, presenters of “Ally 101 — Creating an Inclusive Classroom for LGBTQ+ Students,” talked about gender transitions they have facilitated for students at their schools in Spain and Germany, respectively — sometimes without parental knowledge or consent.
And many LGBT educators apparently belong to a system-wide resource-sharing group on Schoology curated by a DODEA educator. Chavez recommends resources from the group such as “Teaching with Mx. T” and “Teaching Outside the Binary.” But there is another similar group that’s passcode protected — and it’s for students. Teachers can add students to their own LGBT chat rooms in Schoology, and parents are not invited.
If teachers run out of content from people like “Mx. T,” they can use Discovery Education, which many recommended during the summit. One of the programs is “Speak Truth to Power.” This program offers lesson plans that are “flexible, standards-aligned digital resources, designed to educate, engage and inspire the next generation of human rights defenders.” Sounds good, doesn’t it — until you see that transgender activist Jazz Jennings is one of those human rights defenders. But Discovery Education is password-protected, with one portal for students and another for teachers, so we really have no idea what’s being promoted to our children via third-party content creators who can update information in real-time.
Congress Needs to Do More
Our children deserve to learn in an environment free from divisive ideologies, and thankfully, DODEA’s activism has not gone unnoticed by Congress. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., wrote a letter to DOD asking why teachers are being trained to secretly “transition” children at overseas schools. After a year, she still had not received an answer. She also introduced H.R. 4764, the No CRT for our Military Kids Act.
In the Senate, Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2023 to prevent DODEA schools from hiding important medical information from parents — but it was voted down.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., introduced a Servicemember Parents Bill of Rights amendment to the NDAA to provide for more transparency and accountability in DODEA schools. It was adopted in committee with bipartisan support by a vote of 39-19 and is in the House-passed NDAA.
But Congress needs to do much more to ensure the safety of our military children and also that of any DODEA educator who is being intimidated into conformity. It will likely take years to sort out the mess at DODEA, so in the meantime, Congress could consider extending the military’s Non-DOD Schools Program to all students instead of only to those who are not in close proximity to a DODEA school.
Whatever the case, it looks like an extremist stand down is in order for DODEA, and it just might net more than the .005 percent found among our uniformed force.
Amy Haywood is a former senior legislative assistant for a U.S. House representative and an educator with years of experience working in a research-based program to help third culture kids adjust to life overseas. She holds a master’s degree in national security and strategic studies from the U.S. Naval War College.
U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., speaks during the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry, Saturday, Sept. 30, 2017, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has been under intense pressure amid growing concerns over diversity that saw top staffers resign Monday after those conflicts boiled over into the public arena.
DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL) has been facing complaints from Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus members who have been unhappy with the lack of minority representation within the DCCC.
“There is not one person of color — black or brown, that I’m aware of — at any position of authority or decision making in the DCCC,” Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) said. “It is shocking, it is shocking, and something needs to be done about it.”
Bustos flew back to Washington D.C. to hold an emergency meeting to address the internal strife within the organization. Tensions boiled over, and DCCC executive director Allison Jaslow quit during the meeting.
Politico reported:
At the beginning of the meeting, Jaslow resigned and left the session immediately. The meeting — which was described by several sources as spirited and pointed — lasted more than an hour and a half.
“When I was in eighth grade, I decided that my life would be dedicated to serving my country. I did that first in uniform but since have tried to be a force of good in our politics,”Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran, said in a statement later. “And sometimes selfless service means having the courage to take a bow for the sake of the mission — especially when the stakes are so high.”
Tensions continued to boil over, and the domino effect continued:
And in the next 10 hours, much of the senior staff was out: Jared Smith, the communications director and another Bustos ally; Melissa Miller, a top DCCC communications aide; Molly Ritner, political director; Nick Pancrazio, deputy executive director; and Van Ornelas, the DCCC’s director of diversity.
Jacqui Newman, the chief operating officer for the campaign arm, will serve as interim executive director and facilitate the search for a permanent replacement, Bustos said in a statement late Monday.
According to the Hill, one lawmaker called Monday evening’s mass shakeup a “Monday Night Massacre.”
“Cheri campaigned as all things to all people, telling blue dogs one thing, telling progressives another. So inevitably once in office she would disappoint them,” the lawmaker added.
Bustos said that it was a “sobering day filled with tough conversations”and promised to put the DCCC “back on path to protect and expand our majority, with a staff that truly reflects the diversity of our Democratic caucus and our party.”
The high tensions within the DCCC mirror the bigger power struggle between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the far-left members of the “Squad” – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) – who aim to move the Democrat Party farther left in terms of ideology and self-imposed racial-based quotas. However, moderate Democrats worry that the extreme left-wing flank will alienate moderate voters and cost them crucial elections.
This was not the first time Bustos has faced criticism for being too “moderate.”
In January, Bustos received push back from groups such as the Justice Democrats who said she needs to support more progressive policies.
“We do not support Cheri Bustos as leader of the DCCC,”said spokesman Waleed Shahid. “Bustos has not supported progressive policies like Medicare for All, free college, a Green New Deal, or ending private prisons and immigration detention facilities.”
Justice Democrats also criticized her for receiving campaign funds mostly from corporate political action committees and not small donors, according to USA Today.
Bustos did not respond to Politico‘s request for comment.
On his June 16th radio show, Mark Levin said, “I made a suggestion to the gay community. I said you better exercise your second amendment rights while you still can. What did I mean by that,” asked Levin. “What I meant was that you need to acquire weapons to defend yourselves, because you’re being targeted by the Islamo-nazis.”
That’s a good piece of advice, as Levin is known to give. However, his advice runs up against the perceived reality of a lot of today’s youth. This reality is that for today’s youth, from 20-somethings (maybe older), all the way down to elementary school children, the fight instinct has been beaten out of them (figuratively speaking) with the bat of political correctness – leaving only the flight instinct.
Along the same vein as Levin’s advice, I wrote a piece the other day calling for more Americans, particularly millennials, to fight back, become sheepdogs and stop acting like sheep, so when the wolves come calling, as one did in Orlando, you can and will stand up and protect the innocent.
Sadly, far too many young men and women (and other) have been conditioned to hide or flee, rather than fight. Obviously the parents bear some of the blame, but our education system, such that it is, also bears a great deal.
Children are no longer taught about real threats – the kind that can and will “break your bones” and much worse. Instead, they are being brainwashed by leftist educators and advisors to fear words more than actions.
One shining example of this bass-ackwards thinking is on the campus of the University of Northern Colorado. Last year Katrina Rodriguez, Dean of Students and the Title IX Coordinator (the most harmful thing to hit college campuses since the introduction of co-ed dorms), ordered 680 signs to be hung in various places across campus.
One off the wall, politically correct poster after another was hung proclaiming things like: “Language matters because, whether it is intentional or not, the impact of words can reinforce oppression and feelings of discomfort, fear and shame.”
Rodriguez told HeatStreet.com that, “The intent is to educate to foster civility—not to take punitive action,” and “We believe that fostering dialogue on a college campus so that multiple perspectives are explored and debated is the essence of free speech.”
Leftists are all about the precious “dialogue.” This way they can talk and talk, while achieving absolutely nothing. That’s not exactly accurate. They do achieve something quite important – the termination of “free speech.”
Another such poster is a rebuttal of the slogan, “All Lives Matter.” The poster reads” You are dismissing the Black Lives Matter [BLM] movement and the brutality impacting the Black community.”
You want brutality, coddled young black men?! Try being black in Africa, mercilessly slaughtered by Muslims just because you dare to exist! And look at the picture of the 49 killed in Orlando. Look – there’s a black guy – and a black girl – and another and another. Looks to me to be 12 out of the 49.
So pitiful have things gotten on the Northern Colorado campus that they’ve formed and implemented a rapid “Bias Response Team” (BRT). In March there was an incident on campus and the BRT was called into action.
It seems the BLM poster had been defaced. Across the poster was scrolled “All Lives Do Matter,” and “Free Speech Matters.” The BRT quickly removed and replaced it with another poster that read: “This was the site of a bias related behavior.”
If you are shaking your head in disbelief and disgust, join the club, but this is emblematic of the fragile nature of America’s youth.
If young skulls full of mush (attribution – Rush) are taught that there is nothing more evil than an offensive word or silly slogan, how will America’s youth ever be expected to fight back against actual evil – the kind that may say little or nothing while they actual brutalize and kill you?
It is surprising to me how many people continue to allow their children to be brainwashed in the state-run schools. It should not be a hard connection to make between the loss of our children and the fact that they attended the same education system. But, one would think that they would at least wait until the second grade to begin the mush mind program. But this is not the case.
A four-year-old girl in Colorado has been booted from preschool after her mother expressed concern over diversity teaching in the classroom that included books on homosexuality and gender identity.
R.B. Sinclair told the Denver Post this week that her daughter’s preschool teacher at Montview Community Preschool and Kindergarten had been reading books to the children on same-sex “couples” and about worms questioning their gender.
There seems to be no limit to how early they will start the reprograming of the children. Why would a preschooler need to learn about homosexuality? Why are we talking with them about sexuality at all? The reason is simple; falsehood takes longer to sink in.
These children have to hear this filth over and over before it becomes second nature to them. But does this not prove that they instinctively know that it is not normal or right? Does this not show that this is a perversion?
But the “Uneducators” see things differently or at least that is what they would have us believe.
Christian News continues
“Biases start as kids get older and start to see differences as negative. At a young age, kids are exploring all different kinds of things,” Kim Bloemen, director of early childhood education for the Boulder Valley School District, told the Denver Post. “It’s about just providing them with all these experiences.”
The reality is we have left our moorings. We have nothing to keep us bound securely to truth. Without God’s word or Law, there are no bounds to our perversion. I discuss this in my book: An Everlasting Covenant. Buy at Amazon.
RUSH: Open Line Friday. So Mary Jo in Grand Rapids. It’s great to have you with us. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I’m calling about the presidential Democratic candidates, and I am — Democrat candidates. And they are constantly speaking about a life of “equality” and “diversity.” But ultimately, they are living a life of elitism. As I watched those five candidates up on the stage — all over 60, white, one female — I compared that to the Republican candidates who are numerous candidates under 60, Indian, Cuban, an Italian female. It’s… The difference is staggering. And if people would just stop and think. But the problem is that those who follow the Democrats are exactly that: They’re followers. They’re told not to question.
RUSH: Well, they react to what they hear. The Democrats preach a good game of diversity and fairness, equality, and all that, and the people eat it up. And they mean it, and they also believe it when they are told the Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. And as you say, when you look at the Republican debate field you see practically an element of every possibility in this country, ethnically. You’re right. You have Cuban and Canadian ethnicity. He have African-American. You have white rich, you have white poor, you have white middle class.
You have African-American middle class. It covers the gamut. There’s all kinds of diversity. And yet the reality of what people see is over shadowed it might not have by years and years and years of the Democrats in the media accusing the Republicans of not being diverse and hating everybody who isn’t white. Yet when you look at the Democrats all you see is white. All you see is aged — seasoned citizens in most cases. You don’t see minorities, ethnic or otherwise, and you can’t say Hillary is minority because women…
There’s no way that she could be tagged as a minority. She had five people up there: Four men, one woman, all white, all over 60, not exactly diverse. But you want to hear the piece de resistance on this? I am not making this up. The Washington Post watched the same debate you and I did. They saw Bernie Sanders: Aged white guy. They saw Lincoln Chafee: Dumb, close-to-aged white guy. They saw Hillary Clinton: Aging, obviously, white woman. They saw Jim Webb, and in Jim Webb, you kind of say, “What’s he doing here?”
But still you saw an upper-middle class, almost-aging white guy. And then Bernie Sanders: An obvious seasoned citizen, bitter and angry white guy. The Washington Post saw all of that, too, and it didn’t register. The Washington Post wrote a story going after CNN for not having diversity in the moderators! No. I’m not making this up. The Washington Post went after CNN in an article on Wednesday titled, “Where were CNN’s black and Latino moderators all night?” The Washington Post accused CNN of “talking a big game about equality and inclusion but broadcasting just the opposite.”
So when the Washington Post saw the same debate you and I did they missed the fact that every Democrat was old and white. And instead they focused on CNN and they saw Dana Bash, and they saw Anderson Cooper. Hell, CNN had more diversity than the Democrat candidates had. They had a woman, they had a gay/homosexual. Besides, there was Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash and who…? Did they have somebody else that was moderating or just those two? Seems there were three people last… Oh, there was an Hispanic guy. There was an Hispanic guy asking Hispanic-related questions.
Oh, yeah, Don Lemon, a black guy. He got in… Well, he got to read a question off Twitter or Facebook. But at least he got some face time. That’s exactly right. So the Washington Post sees Don Lemon, black guy; Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, white; Hispanic guy. You had homosexual in that group. And they accused CNN of not being diverse, and they miss entirely the Democrats on the stage. You’ve gotta be trying to get that story. I mean, how do you…? I mean, ridiculous. But they go after CNN and give every Democrat on that stage a pass. Mary Jo, I appreciate the call.
This is Tom in Baltimore, you’re next. Great to have you on Open Line Friday. Hello.
CALLER: Hi there. It’s great to be on the show again. I talked to you as a Rush Baby, and I just wanted to say what an honor it is as a Rush Baby to be able to talk to you.
RUSH: Thanks very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: My point here is this. After watching the Republican debate I saw that many of them did have good conservative points to make. But overall there was a lot of infighting and a lot of areas where they were not presenting themselves as conservatives. There were many that stayed conservative the whole debate. But they overall were not unified. They did not present themselves as an ideologically pure conservative party. But if you compare the Republican debate to the Democrat debate, they all presented themselves as supporters of big government or reduction in individual freedom, redistribution of wealth. They all presented themselves as that. And in that way, I feel like Democrat Party is very ideologically pure and unified, and they use that power to their advantage when they’re trying to create legislation.
RUSH: Well, there’s no question. Look, this cuts both ways. I mean, you can say the Democrats are in lockstep, and they are. On the Republican side, you could say they’re not monolithic. There’s all kinds of different points of view welcome in the Republican Party, i.e., the big tent, that we’re not exclusionary of people. But that doesn’t seem to persuade anybody. It doesn’t seem to say to people, “You know, the Republican Party is pretty good. They allow all kinds of different ways of thinking.” That doesn’t seem to work. The Republican Party’s actively trying to suppress conservatives, Tom. And the Democrats are indeed unified on the fact that you and I are not qualified to lead our lives. They must do that for us.
I remember when the mantra of “every kid gets a trophy” began to take hold in our youth athletic programs. Well, now that philosophy of social utopianism has permeated throughout our culture and now in a place where it absolutely has no place. In life, there are standards and no one’s entitled to “have” anything — well, besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, that is not the societal vision of the liberal progressives; theirs is based upon egalitarianism. That, however, is not consistent with the duty and mission of our armed forces.
I was sent the following article from a distinguished retired Special Forces officer, Brigadier General Remo Butler, who was and continues to be a role model for me. As reported in USA Today:
Many of the Pentagon’s elite commando units — including the Navy SEALs — are overwhelmingly led and manned by white officers and enlisted troops, a concern at the highest levels of the military where officials have stressed the need to create more diverse forces to handle future threats.
Black officers and enlisted troops are scarce in some special operations units in highest demand, according to data provided by the Pentagon to USA TODAY. For instance, eight of 753 SEAL officers are black, or 1%.
An expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces said the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win.
“We don’t know where we will find ourselves in the future,” said Army Col. Michael Copenhaver, who has published a paper on diversity in special operating forces. “One thing is for sure: We will find ourselves around the globe. And around the globe you have different cultural backgrounds everywhere. Having that kind of a diverse force can only increase your operational capability.
Special Operations forces, including SEALs and the Army’s Green Berets, are often the face of the American military in foreign hot spots where they rescue hostages, raid terrorist camps and train local troops. SEAL Team 6 famously raided Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and killed him. As the military sheds conventional forces — the Army will pare 40,000 soldiers in the next few years — special operators’ ranks continue to be filled as demand for their unique capabilities remains high.
US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) based in Tampa, does not track that information on its nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnel, said Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman. Gen. Joseph Votel, SOCOM’s commander, declined to speak to USA TODAY for this story, said Col. Thomas Davis, another SOCOM spokesman.
Votel did address the issue last month at the Aspen Security Conference and stressed the need for diverse commando units, which operate in almost 90 countries. The average enlisted special operator is 29, married with two children and has deployed four to 10 times, Votel told the audience.
What he didn’t say is that most of them are white.
“SOCOM needs diversity, we need people of color, we need men, we need women to help us solve the problems that we deal with today,” Votel said. “So we need good people; men, women, people of all colors.”
What we need is a highly trained, well-resourced military focused on defeating our enemies. What these folks fail to understand is that in the community of warriors, no one cares about pigmentation. They care about honor, integrity, character and fierceness.
What I don’t want to see is all of a sudden the focus turn to having “black faces” instead of elite warriors. Diversity is not the goal of the U.S. military; it is to fight and win the nation’s wars. On the battlefield, bullets don’t seek out someone based on skin color. This design of social egalitarianism has no place in our military.
And spare me the diatribe about the integration of blacks into the U.S. military. From the days of Crispus Attucks, black men have shown they’re brave and willing to stand and fight for one single objective: liberty. The men of the 54th Massachusetts and the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry didn’t seek preferential treatment. As well, the 369th Harlem Hell Fighters, Tuskegee Airmen and Montford Point Marines achieved not because of their skin color, but because of their character.
There’s no need for “diversity agents” to try and manipulate the composition of our armed forces, sacrificing our effectiveness in pursuit of fairness, under the guise of enhanced increased capability. And what’s most disconcerting is the infiltration into the military of this ill-conceived mindset — namely the Pentagon joining in on this folly. The statement from an “expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces” — since when did the U.S. military need an expert on diversity of commando forces? I can tell you right now, if I were Secretary of Defense, that’s the first position I’d eliminate! The deduction of this so-called expert — “the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win” — is utterly disrespectful to the men and women serving, sacrificing and committing themselves in fighting for this nation today.
The strength of our military is we do not see color; we only see the oath we take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, each man and woman who takes up that oath serves in their best capacity — not one based on respective differences, but rather united in the commonality of being an American.
Our elite forces are elite because of their standards — and “monkeying” around with their composition based on some insidious research about diversity is stupidity. There are things that must be earned in life, and so it is with titles such as Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, Navy SEAL, Recon Marine and Air Force PJ. These are not just little plastic trophies to be handed out by the gods of diversity. They represent time-honored impeccable standards of excellence and elitism that only a few are called to seek, and even fewer attain.
On my chest I wear three sets of wings: Army Master Parachutist, Army Air Assault and the Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist. Those were not given because I was a minority. They were earned because I sought to “Be All I Could Be.” I didn’t get these through some diversity-approved course; rather, I entered as others and proved myself worthy.
At a time when we’re facing countless global enemies from Russia, China, Iran and Islamic jihadism, it’s not about the skin color of the person pulling the trigger to send our enemies to hell. It’s about the qualifications and their ability to do so. Diversity in our Special Operations forces means committed men and women who have diversified skills and talents enabling us to defeat the enemy. The policies of our Defense Department MUST not be about meeting quota goals, but rather in placing the MOST qualified, trained and ready force on the field of battle. No one cares about skin color, save those who only care about inane statistics they can show for their own elevation.
Once upon a time, the government said every American had a right to own a home and boasted of an increase in minority home ownership. Standards were lowered and what ensued 30 years later, in 2008, was a financial collapse. The folly here will result in an even greater collapse with ramifications on the national security of this republic.
For America, it’s never been about the skin color of the warrior. It has been, and must always be, about their oath of service and commitment to victory — not diversity.
Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation, President Barack Obama suggested in a kid-glove interview with the New York Times.
“The president mused, the biggest threat to America — the only force that can really weaken us — is us,” said the interviewer, Thomas Friedman.
“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions,”said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism and radicalism.
“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama added.
That comment about diversity was likely a warning to conservatives, who are expected by many Democrats to lose power as the nation absorbs more foreigners who do not share conservatives’ small-government ideals.
“Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.
The GOP was first on the list of causes that Obama blamed for the political divisions that are blocking his agenda, such as increased immigration. However, his list also included a series of subsidiary causes that are actually consequences of underlying ideological conflicts and economic factors.
“While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled money in politics — the guts of our political system today — are sapping our ability to face big challenges together, more than any foreign enemy,”said Friendman, who is an Obama supporter, and a champion of progressive-style expansive government.
Obama and Friedman did not put any blame on the Democratic Party or Obama himself, whose own aggressive use of big-government to promote the progressive goal of social diversity caused voters in 2010 to give the Republicans a majority in the House.
Obama’s complaints come as the GOP and public opinion have blocked his top priority for the second term — increasing immigration. That failure — despite near-universal support from Democrats, media, big business, Wall Street and many billionaires — recently prompted Obama to say he plans to provide an unilateral amnesty to several million illegal immigrants, and award them work-permits. That’s a high-risk threat, because many recent polls shows that the public very strongly opposes illegal immigration, and gives him very low ratings for his immigration policy.
But Obama didn’t suggest he’s responsible for the nation’s political divides.
Obama’s claim of moderation is contradicted by much evidence.
For example, in October 2013, during the dispute over the 2014 budget, Obama used one speech to describe Republican legislators in the House as akin to arsonists, kidnappers, deadbeats, butchers, lunatics and extortionists, obsessives, out-of-touch hostage-takers, nuclear-armed bombers, and unserious irresponsible extremists.(RELATED: Obama Offers To Fairly Negotiate With GOP Terrorists)
“I’ve shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations,”he also told the TV cameras during the same speech.
It’s official…LA IS La-La Land. In a frenzied attempt to prove their “diversity”, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a resolution on Wednesday recognizing the contributions of the Muslim American community and declared July 2014 as Muslim American Heritage Month.
Seriously, people…put down the Bong and back away, slowly…
This decision begs the question: Was everyone on the LA City Council conscious during this vote?
Not only has the Islamic community NOT contributed to the United States in any beneficial way, BUT they have not benefited freedom NOR humanity since the inception of Islam in the 7th Century.
A blood-thirsty ideology, started by a tyrannical politician (Muhammed), who…not unlike the world despots today…destroyed all his non-supporters. His devout followers today follow ever-so-carefully in his bloody footsteps. Obedient to the words of the Quran, the Hadiths (sayings of the prophet) and the Sunnah (practices of the prophet)…these religious zealots commit some of the most heinous acts in the world today.
Click on picture to go to link providing a detailed list of Islam atrocities.
The list of acts by Muhammed’s minions is interminable (because it has never ceased). According to The Religion Of Peace, Islamic terrorists have carried out more that 23,000 deadly terror attacks since 9-11 (see link for complete list or click on the image to the Left). And THAT does not include kidnappings, child marriages, female genital mutilations, sex slavery, floggings, privation, etc…which sores into the millions.
Was this what LA’s City Council was thinking about when they declared a month for Islam?
It’s ostensible that the Leftists in CA are obsessed with proving to the world that they are fair, tolerant and generous to all (well, all those who either agree with them or are deemed not as “evolved” as they and needing care). But to laud an ideology that has brought destitution, fear, disease, imprisonment, slavery, destruction and death wherever they plant their barbaric behinds, is not only feckless to the freedoms we treasure…but pernicious to our national security.
John Quincy Adams (for the Left: He was our 6th President) described the Quran in one of his essays as follows:
“The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
And quoting a Muslim Scholar from the 14th century, Ibn Khaldoun, clarifying that holy war is the duty of every Muslim. From his famed work, Muqaddimah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”
There is nothing honorable about this ideology. What has been exhibited…historically by its founder, and today by its followers…is a hateful, intolerant system that seeks to annihilate those who oppose it.
So, to the REST of LA: I believe you are much more intelligent and humane than those on this council. For the sake of democracy and freedom…prove me right and condemn this proclamation.
As society progresses, we lose small pieces of what made us human. We replace these little pieces with dangerous facsimiles of what originally filled us. Above all else, we lose our sense of moral integrity. What comes with a loss of moral integrity is an animus toward others who still hold values which many have left behind. We reach a certain point—which I fear we are quickly approaching—when that animus evolves into hostility, and that hostility into tyranny. Once we have reached tyranny, we cannot go back; we are trapped behind a glass wall, only able to see in our minds what once was possible, and who we once were. We are no longer humans, but animals, fighting for territory and scraps of food.
As we have progressed, we have lost tolerance. The Left will tell you that they are the most tolerant people the world has ever seen. That is, of course, a lie. The Left is only tolerant of those with whom they agree—which isn’t tolerance at all.
According to Town Hall, a Army Chaplain’s Assistant is being targeted for her religious beliefs. After watching a documentary in which a Pastor was condoning homosexuality, telling his gay parishioners to embrace who they are, the Chaplain’s Assistant posted a response on her personal Facebook page. This is the response in full:
“A lot ticked off, now to all my gay friends you know I care about you so don’t think otherwise. I’m watching this documentary and this gay guy went to a church and the Pastor was telling him that he needs to embrace his way and know that it is not a sin. Ok umm wow, dude it is. I’m sick of people making Gods word what it’s not. Yes God loves you as a person but He hates the sin. Tired of hearing about Pastors being ok with homosexuality.”
In response, her Commander told her to remove the post, or face demotion, and a salary decrease. Her Commander said that she was creating “a hostile and antagonistic environment in the unit.”
The Assistant says that she will not remove the post, and that she will not be intimidated into hiding her beliefs. “I haven’t taken it down, and I won’t take it down…
I’ve never gotten in trouble for anything. And there’s nothing hostile or antagonistic in the post…Where does it stop? If they are going to silence me on Facebook, where will it stop?”
Todd Hudnall, her Colorado Pastor, came to the defense of the Assistant, saying:
“I read what she posted and there was absolutely no trace of animus, disrespect or hostility. Instead, she expressed love for her gay friends but insisted that biblical values should not be compromised. Her issue wasn’t with anyone who is gay but with pastors who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching about homosexual behavior…I was struck by the fact that the military was denying her right to privately exercise her freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
Where is the tolerance on the part of the Military? I can guarantee that if someone of a faith besides Christianity posted something similar to what the Assistant posted, the response would not be the same. That, right there, is intolerance.
Tolerance–in a sense–means dealing with the world around you; it means seeing people for who they are, not what they are. Tolerance means that although you may not agree with someone, you respect them as a human being, and treat them as you would want to be treated. The Military cannot violate freedom of speech. The Assistant has every right to express her beliefs in a way that doesn’t create an uncomfortable environment for her peers. She did that. She respectfully addressed her biblical understanding on her privateFacebook page.
Finally, what the Chaplain’s Assistant said is correct. If the Military silences her on Facebook, where and when will they act next? If they can reach their arms into the personal lives of soldiers–specifically and deliberately targeting religious beliefs–what is stopping them from going further? The answer is nothing. Nothing is stopping them. Animus will turn into hostility, and hostility into tyranny.
I don’t care if you agree with the Chaplain’s Assistant or not. I don’t care if you think her beliefs are wrong. If you care about our country, if you care about the future of our liberties, you will stand with her. With this case, a small, fragile piece of our collective freedom is teetering on the edge of a cliff. If it is allowed to fall, it will shatter into a million tiny pieces which we will never be able to put back together. It will be just one more piece of humanity lost, pushing us further toward tyranny.
“Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity—symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others–these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs—if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”
Barack Obama is quite adept at saying one thing, while meaning another. Taken at face value, the essence of what the President said is accurate: fear and resentment may harden us to others; and it discourages cooperation. So, if one were to take out of context what the President said, it might make for a delightful sound bite; making Obama seem as wise and urbane as the media makes him out to be.
However, by reading the entirety of his speech, it is quite clear that Obama is directly comparing racial segregation to religious education. Let’s break down what the most powerful man in the world said:
1. He first establishes that segregation is a despicable thing. Ok, that’s accurate.
2. He then goes on to compare religious education among Catholics and Protestants to segregation. In essence, Obama is claiming that sending your child to be educated in an environment that you believe is better suited to your views is comparable to not wanting your children around black people.
3. He makes sure to evoke the everlasting tension between Catholic and Protestant so that it doesn’t appear as though he is talking directly about racial segregation; but rather religious and social segregation.
4. Beyond the obvious absurdity of comparing religious education to racial segregation, this has implications beyond the scope of school. By chastising the Catholic schools and Protestant schools for “segregation,” Obama is essentially taking a shot at religion in general. Is he saying that because many of us choose to be either Catholic or Protestant, that we are segregating ourselves? Is he saying that practicing one faith over another is comparable to black segregation? If so, he is making a clear and dangerous move against freedom of religion.
5. The President also links religion and religious education directly with hatred and resentment. He is taking liberties in terms of speaking about faith that no President should take. At its core, Obama’s message is that this school, and religious “segregation” is a source of resentment; that it creates and fosters resentment.
6. Finally, it’s Democratic policies that cause this supposed segregation in the first place. If the Democrats were to actually implement a voucher school choice program, parents would be free to choose the schools best suited for their kids. In that case, poor kids, whose parents cannot afford Catholic or Private school, would not be locked into an awful district. With choice, I’m sure many parents—even non-religious parents—would rather have their kids in a faith based school over a public school. Regardless, this “segregation” comparison is absolute garbage.
What Obama loves to do is speak these elegant and striking words that mean absolutely nothing. When taken apart, and understood clinically, Obama’s words often represent the exact opposite of his apparent intention. With this speech, apparently intended to provoke thought and discussion regarding a divided people, Obama has insulted schools of faith, religion at large, and those who simply desire a better education for their children.
Apparently, reptiles aren’t the only creatures with forked tongues.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
June 18, 2016
suggestion to the gay community. I said you better exercise your second amendment rights while you still can. What did I mean by that,” asked Levin. “What I meant was that you need to acquire weapons to defend yourselves, because you’re being targeted by the Islamo-nazis.”
This reality is that for today’s youth, from 20-somethings (maybe older), all the way down to elementary school children, the fight instinct has been beaten out of them (figuratively speaking) with the bat of political correctness – leaving only the flight instinct.
been conditioned to hide or flee, rather than fight. Obviously the parents bear some of the blame, but our education system, such that it is, also bears a great deal.
shame.”
slaughtered by Muslims just because you dare to exist! And look at the picture of the 49 killed in Orlando. Look – there’s a black guy – and a black girl – and another and another. Looks to me to be 12 out of the 49.
removed and replaced it with another poster that read: “This was the site of a bias related behavior.”
their children to be brainwashed in the state-run schools. It should not be a hard connection to make between the loss of our children and the fact that they attended the same education system. But, one would think that they would at least wait until the second grade to begin the mush mind program. But this is not the case.
You have African-American middle class. It covers the gamut. There’s all kinds of diversity. And yet the reality of what people see is over shadowed it might not have by years and years and years of the Democrats in the media accusing the Republicans of not being diverse and hating everybody who isn’t white. Yet when you look at the Democrats all you see is white. All you see is aged — seasoned citizens in most cases. You don’t see minorities, ethnic or otherwise, and you can’t say Hillary is minority because women…
So when the Washington Post saw the same debate you and I did they missed the fact that every Democrat was old and white. And instead they focused on CNN and they saw Dana Bash, and they saw Anderson Cooper. Hell, CNN had more diversity than the Democrat candidates had. They had a woman, they had a gay/homosexual. Besides, there was Anderson Cooper and Dana Bash and who…? Did they have somebody else that was moderating or just those two? Seems there were three people last… Oh, there was an Hispanic guy. There was an Hispanic guy asking Hispanic-related questions. 
It’s official…LA IS La-La Land. In a frenzied attempt to prove their “diversity”, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a resolution on Wednesday recognizing the contributions of the Muslim American community and declared July 2014 as Muslim American Heritage Month.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.