The introduction of wokeness into our military weakens it

August 29, 2023

Last July a retired U.S. Army general spoke to an audience on the state of the nation’s military forces. Thomas Spoehr attained the rank of Lt. General in his career spanning more than 36 years in uniform. During that time, he served in positions in the Pentagon, with the 82nd Airborne Division, the 1st Armored Division, and as Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Forces in Iraq.

Spoehr was concerned with some things that had transpired that worked against the efficiency and strength of our military, and shared his concerns with the audience at the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series at Hillsdale College. Following are some of his concerns. 

In 2015, a U.S. Marine Corps study concluded that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. The study was rejected by then-Secretary of the Navy, Ray Maybus.

Later, the Department of Defense under Secretary Ashton Carter opened all military combat jobs to women, committing to “gender-neutral standards” that ensured that female service members would meet the requirements. The Army began to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. 

However, after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.

Also, that year, President Barack Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. But after he was elected President, Donald Trump put that change on hold. His Defense Secretary, James Mattis, had information showing, among other things, that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempted suicide and experienced severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population.

The Trump administration then imposed restrictions on military service personnel suffering from gender dysphoria. However, as one of his first actions, newly elected President Joe Biden signed an executive order that cancelled those restrictions and allowed all transgender individuals to participate in our military services. Later, Biden’s administration allowed active duty military personnel to take time off from their duties to have sex-change surgery, related hormones and drugs, which would be paid for by taxpayers.

The Biden administration has also removed a policy that prohibited personnel with HIV from serving in combat zones, due to the need for special medications and the danger of transmission through shared blood. 

And in recent years, our military’s strenuous physical fitness standard has been weakened, with the goal of “leveling the playing field.” This allows people previously not up to the physical standard to now serve.

In July of last year, a drag queen story hour was scheduled at the base library of Ramstein Air Base in Germany. A drag queen was going to read to children of Air Force personnel stationed there. However, when this news reached lawmakers in the U.S., who complained to the Secretary of the Air Force, the event was cancelled.

Also, in 2021, the Navy released a video instructing Navy personnel that they need to create a “safe space for everybody.” This includes using “inclusive language,” such as saying “hey everybody,” instead of “hey guys.” Spoehr wondered what other “woke” changes might follow. 

Taking things a few steps further down the path, Biden required through an executive order that all organizations in the military services must create Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices, and to produce DEI plans and track the progress toward those goals. The purpose of this is to advance “equity for all.”

Spoehr also mentioned that Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the idea that capitalism is racist are also being used to indoctrinate personnel. The charge of CRT being used was denied by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, but Spoehr said much evidence contradicts Austin’s denial. 

Legislation introduced this year in Congress would halt the use of CRT, the creation of diversity offices, and the easing of physical requirements. Whether this legislation will pass is an open question.

In a write-up of Spoehr’s address printed in Hillsdale’s publication, “Imprimis,” is this: “Wokeness also comes in the form of conflating the mission of the military with environmental ideology. A year ago, President Biden told a group of overseas Air Force airmen that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had determined that the greatest threat facing America was global warming—a claim the Joint Chiefs had to walk back. 

“In the same vein, Biden signed an executive order imposing a massive regime of environmental goals and requirements for the Department of Defense. These goals included transitioning to all electric non-tactical vehicles by 2035, carbon-free electricity for military installations by that same year, and net zero emissions from those installations by 2050. As a result, the Pentagon recently announced it will devote over $3 billion of its already stretched-thin military budget to climate-related initiatives in 2023 alone.”

The job and responsibility of the U.S. military is to protect and defend the United States. Social experimentation and political ideology weaken its ability. The military must have at every position the best qualified and capable person possible, regardless of race or gender.

The fundamental transformation of the United States is well underway

August 22, 2023

Way back when Barack Obama was campaigning for President of the United States he famously said, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Years later, in an interview with then-Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, then-President Obama somewhat walked back his statement. But looking at what has happened between Obama’s original statement and today, it is pretty obvious that the Democrats are indeed working to fundamentally transform the country.

Democrats are increasingly comfortable attacking foundational principles and elements of American governance. Here are some of the efforts now underway.

They want to enlarge the U.S. Supreme Court by adding Democrat appointees to it. Unhappy with recent rulings, they want to add more liberal justices to the Court. 

This idea ignores the reality that the judicially conservative justices they want to put in the minority make rulings based upon existing law and constitutional principles that are understood today as when they were enacted. They are “originalists.” 

Democrats prefer instead to change these principles using a liberal majority on the Court. They want to pack it with justices who will reinterpret laws, not support them as intended.

They favor doing away with the Electoral College. One point made to support this transformation is that in a democracy, the winner of the popular vote should be President. However, as has been said here and elsewhere before, the United States is not a pure democracy; it is a republic. Thus, by design, not all decisions are to be made by 50 percent-plus-one vote.

And, only four times in the election of 46 Presidents in over 240 years has the Electoral College been in conflict with the popular vote. 

However, without the balancing of the varied interests of Americans provided by the Electoral College, every Presidential election would be decided by the big states and big cities. The rest of the country would be at their mercy. It is not what the Founders believed was best, nor is it in the best interest of all Americans for Presidents to be forever selected by a few states.

“Democrats in the Senate have introduced legislation to make Washington, DC a state, and they’re seeing overwhelming support,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., wrote in an email. More than 40 Senators support this idea, including Virginia Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, but not West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

“Democrats know they can’t win with standard tactics,” McCaarthy wrote, “so they’re making a power play by trying to flip the game board to their advantage!” 

But here is why it can’t happen: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state. It is a neutral district where representatives of all the states can meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business. DC as a state, or any state, would carry too much power.

Federal regulations — both existing and planned — are limiting Americans’ ability to choose items they want and need, and making many things more difficult and expensive to produce.

Gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles are discouraged in favor of electric vehicles. Many household appliances that work on natural gas or other fuels are targeted for replacement, as are incandescent lightbulbs.

The massive set of federal regulations tell Americans things they can no longer do, and things they can no longer purchase. 

All of this is done under the premise of making things better. But ultimately, they increase the control that the federal government, under Democrat control, will hold over the people, and reduce our freedoms.

Biden’s failure to adequately secure the southern border, as required by the Constitution and laws, has allowed a huge increase in illegals entering the country.

“According to Customs and Border Protection, since January 2021 when Biden took the oath of office, there have been 5,118,661 encounters with illegal immigrants along the southern border,” as reported by Townhall.com. “Add to that the number of known ‘gotaways,’” which are illegal immigrants who were not apprehended.

“Through the first half of Biden's term from January 2021 through January 2023, Customs and Border Protection reported 1.2 million ‘gotaways.’”

While most of these people may be good people looking for a better life, others carry disease, are criminals or drug or child traffickers. The negative effects of illegals on cities and states is enormous, and the number of drug deaths has climbed.

Further, these illegal “residents” may eventually be given citizen status by the Democrat administration, without earning it, as in the past. This is both foolish and dangerous.

The ideas of Democrats/liberals/socialists are unable to win among all Americans on their merit. So, they want to gain control over the rest of us, and will do nearly anything to gain that position, and fundamental transformation is their number one tool.

And in the pure democracy into which they want to transform America, on a vote to end all fossil fuel uses, ban guns, limit free speech, have abortion after birth, or any wild idea, all it will take is a 50 percent-plus-one vote to accomplish that, or a Supreme Court with “law makers” instead of “law interpreters.”

The problems associated with recycling plastics

August 15, 2023

The climate change faction, to which the Biden administration belongs, wants to do away with fossil fuels. But what they may not realize is that in addition to being fuel, some fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas, are basic elements in many things the American people need and want.

“Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices possible,” Energy.gov tells us. 

“Major petrochemicals—including ethylene, propylene, acetylene, benzene, and toluene, as well as natural gas constituents like methane, propane, and ethane—are the feedstock chemicals for the production of many of the items we use and depend on every day. Modern life relies on the availability of these products that are made in the United States and across the globe.”

Energy.gov lists 161 of the 6,000 items that are made from oil and natural gas. The list includes: artificial limbs, asphalt, aspirin, awnings, backpacks, balloons, caulking, electric blankets, electrical tape, enamel, epoxy paint, eyeglasses, fan belts, faucet washers, fertilizers, hearing aids, heart valves, house paint, ink, insect repellent, insecticides, insulation, iPad/iPhone, petroleum jelly, pharmaceuticals, plastics, life jackets, light-weight aircraft, roofing, refrigerants, vinyl flooring, vitamin capsules, tires, tool boxes, toothbrushes, toothpaste, transparent tape, water pipes, wind turbine blades, and many more.

Many of those products are valuable and useful, so the mania to end fossil fuels carries with it a heavy price in terms of replacing these items.

One of those products is plastic. Take a guess at how many things that people use, want, and depend upon are made from or contain plastic?

Plastics, however, have a down side. So many plastic products are used once or a few times and discarded. Many people try to recycle them, but that is a non-existent entity, to a large degree.

An article on the National Public Radio (NPR) website addresses this. “The vast majority of plastic that people use, and in many cases put into blue recycling bins, is headed to landfills, or worse, according to a report from Greenpeace on the state of plastic recycling in the U.S.”

The article cites a report that the amount of plastic actually recycled and used for new products has fallen to only about 5 percent, and is expected to fall even further in the future.

“Greenpeace found that no plastic — not even soda bottles, one of the most prolific items thrown into recycling bins — meets the threshold to be called "recyclable" according to standards set by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation New Plastic Economy Initiative,” the article continued. “Plastic must have a recycling rate of 30 percent to reach that standard; no plastic has ever been recycled and reused close to that rate.”

The NPR article also explained that “Waste management experts say the problem with plastic is that it is expensive to collect and sort. There are now thousands of different types of plastic, and none of them can be melted down together. Plastic also degrades after one or two uses. Greenpeace found that the more plastic is reused the more toxic it becomes.

“New plastic, on the other hand, is cheap and easy to produce. The result is that plastic trash has few markets — a reality the public has not wanted to hear,” NPR wrote.

There are tons of these un-reusable plastic items that are not really needed. Things such as packaging materials, shopping bags, straws, bottles, cups and such things were made of paper or glass prior to plastic being implemented, and we can move back in that direction. Paper and glass are much easier to recycle or dispose of than these plastic items.

So, while we need to cut back on the production of plastic items that can be replaced with materials that can be reused, or really are not needed, there are still many plastic items that we must continue to produce.

On the former point, “Environmentalists and lawmakers in some states are now pushing for legislation that bans single use plastics, and for ‘bottle bills’ which pay customers to bring back their plastic bottles,” NPR said. “The bills have led to successful recycling rates for plastic bottles in places like Oregon and Michigan, but have faced steep resistance from plastic and oil industry lobbyists.”

"The real solution is to switch to systems of reuse and refill," Lisa Ramsden, senior plastic campaigner for Greenpeace USA, said. "We are at a decision point on plastic pollution. It is time for corporations to turn off the plastic tap."

Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, criticized the Greenpeace view on plastics, and added that the industry is "on the cusp of a circularity revolution" regarding plastic recycling, and is "scaling up sortation, advanced recycling, and new partnerships that enable used plastic to be remade again and again."

Throwing used plastics in oceans and landfills has created a serious problem. It makes no sense to keep producing and then throwing away plastic items that are used once or a few times, like straws, wrappers, etc. Those items could be made from recyclable materials, or be made to be reused continuously.

Climate change is being blamed for wildfires in North America

August 8, 2023

The wild fires in Canada this year along with the warmer-than-normal temperatures in parts of the country have energized the pro-climate change voices.

An article on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Website noted the following: “Climate change, including increased heat, extended drought, and a thirsty atmosphere, has been a key driver in increasing the risk and extent of wildfires in the western United States during the last two decades.”

Citing a 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) study, the article added that, “climate change enhanced the drying of organic matter and doubled the number of large fires between 1984 and 2015 in the western United States. A 2021 study supported by NOAA concluded that climate change has been the main driver of the increase in fire in the western United States.”

This is a compelling scenario. Wildfires in the U.S. and Canada have certainly been a problem, particularly recently. But as Paul Harvey so wisely said in his radio broadcasts, “Now, the rest of the story.”

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last month, authored by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, tells us that, “One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasn’t.”

Lomborg isn’t just some “climate denier,” he is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. He was listed as one of Time's “100 most influential people,” and Business Insider cited him as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics."

The Copenhagen Consensus Center is the winner of Prospect magazine’s 2016 Think Tank of the Year award in the International Affairs category for think tanks based in the United States. 

Given his skepticism of the degree to which the fears of climate change have been expanded, his arguments against that mentality have been harshly received by those who promote that danger.

But he does not come to the fight unarmed, or with only words. In his column he wrote that, “For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planet’s surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3 percent of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.” In support of that claim, there is a chart prepared by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA).

“In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data,” Lomborg continues, “the world hit a new record-low of 2.2 percent burned area. Yet you’ll struggle to find that reported anywhere.”

The area burned has decreased by 0.8 percent, showing that there has been roughly 27 percent less area burned since 2000.

Lomborg’s point is that while looking at North America tells a particular story, broadening the focus to include the entire globe tells a very different story.

Leighton Steward, who passed away last year, was a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive. He had served as Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University, was Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition, and was twice Chairman of the Audubon Nature Institute. He had offered environmental advice that was accepted by both the EPA and the U. S. Corps of Engineers.

Years before his passing, U.S. News’ “Washington Whispers” discussed Steward’s perspective on climate change. Paul Bedard, who authored the article, outlined Steward’s views. “Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.”

Furthermore, Steward believed that if CO2 levels are cut, food production will suffer because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also believed that higher CO2 levels are really not harmful to humans. 

Buying into the CO2 crisis, the Biden administration is rising to the occasion by planning to limit many things that Americans need and want. Things like gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles that are affordable and dependable. Incandescent bulbs to light our homes and businesses. Stoves, water heaters, furnaces, grills and other appliances powered by natural gas and propane. All of these desired devices will be banned in favor of electric devices that will be heavily regulated, very expensive, and will create more of a demand than the electric grid can supply.

And the federal government — which has evolved from the smaller and limited entity it was designed to be into a gargantuan, too-powerful body — now enforces these political desires with rules with the force of law that have not been approved by the Congress, the law-making body in our tripartite government.

Students’ objection to curriculum should not cause job loss

August 1, 2023

The old-timers among us look around and are stunned, shocked, and in disbelief at some of what they see going on.

One of those things is the “cancel culture,” where people who don’t like or are offended by something or someone proceed to “cancel” it or them. That means having statues torn down or the name of a building changed, or ruining the life or career of a person.

Quite often, the subject of the “cancelation” is someone or something about which the cancelers only know enough to be upset about it or them. And quite often, the cancelers don’t know the whole story behind the subject.

Another one is the idea that if someone is born a male or a female, and they are uncomfortable with that, they can indulge in chemical and/or surgical processes and try to change their gender to the other one.

These ideas did not exist several decades ago, or if they did, they weren’t talked about very much.

Today, the meaning of the idea of “gender” is very broad and fluid among some folks. And there has become a sort of underground rule that these ideas must be accepted by everyone, regardless of what people know or believe.

A recent news item tells the story of a biology professor, Dr. Johnson Varkey. He has been an adjunct professor of biology at St. Philip's College in San Antonio, Texas for 19 years. And during that time, he has taught Human Anatomy and Physiology to some 1,500 students.

On November 28, 2022, four of Varkey's students walked out of his class when he stated that sex was determined by X and Y chromosomes, just as he always had during his years teaching at the college. Shortly thereafter, he was fired.

However, the school allegedly fired him for teaching his students “that sex was determined by X and Y chromosomes and that reproduction must occur between a male and a female to continue the human species,” according to a report by Fox News Digital. “Despite the fact that Varkey taught from the school-approved and science-based curriculum, St. Philip's College claims his teaching was religious.”

In response to his being fired, Varkey wrote in a communiqué to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which he said, "I also explained that when a sperm (which has 23 chromosomes) joins with an egg (which also has 23 chromosomes), a zygote (which has 46 chromosomes) is formed, and it begins to divide, and after 38 weeks a baby is born. Because no information is added or deleted in those 38 weeks, life starts when the zygote begins to divide, not when the baby is born."

The Fox report noted that “in his notice of termination letter, St. Philip’s College said the complaint against him contained several reports of ‘religious preaching, discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter.’ The college claims he violated ‘the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity,’ but provided no explanation or reasoning for its accusation.”

"It saddens me that we have come to the place where, in an institution of higher learning, the feelings and opinions of the students are allowed to usurp the facts of science," Varkey told Fox. 

Is there a sensible explanation for why, after 19 years of teaching the same biology course based upon a long-approved curriculum, the college suddenly accepts the allegation of four students that Varkey’s presentation of the course material is religious, discriminatory against some students, anti-abortion and misogynistic? 

In opposing his firing, Varkey’s First Liberty Institute (FLI) attorneys have argued that his classroom work is based upon his biological education and experience, and also his religious beliefs. They also state that "throughout his employment, he never discussed with any student his personal views — religious or otherwise — on human gender or sexuality."

Are college professors and others now expected to adjust the presentation of their subjects so that they don’t offend their students, even if that means abandoning long-held and scientifically sound principles?

“No college professor should be fired for teaching factual concepts that a handful of students don’t want to hear," Keisha Russel, Counsel for FLI and the lead attorney on Varkey’s case, told Fox News Digital. "When public universities silence their own professors from teaching true concepts to students, education has been turned on its head."

The Alamo Colleges District, of which St. Philip’s College is a part, told Fox News Digital it does not comment on personnel issues. 

Science is a process of investigation. At some point, a theory gains acceptance as a general truth, as no different evidence has been presented for a long time. But there is always a chance that something will come along. Therefore, “settled science” is not always settled.

However, the science of gender has not been challenged by new scientific evidence, and two genders reign as the general truth. Colleges and universities ought to be substantially more thoughtful about when they endorse ideas that are significantly different than what is considered the correct scientific position.

And certainly, this situation ought not to have cost a long-time professor his job.