Biden’s catastrophic border policy puts Americans in danger

January 30, 2024

Most people in the United States today understand that the situation at our southern border is a crisis. Looking back to FY2001 (October 2000 through September 2001) at the illegal border crossings, here is what has happened since then.

Using data from Statista, a global data and business intelligence platform, here are the numbers.

In FY01 there were 1,266,214 illegal entries. That was when George W. Bush was President. Through the rest of his term, until FY2009 the number generally decreased, and during the last fiscal year of Bush’s second term, the number was 733,825.

During Barack Obama’s two terms, the numbers were lower, but started to rise during Obama’s second term, ending at 415,816.

During the tenure of Donald Trump, in the first two years, the numbers were lower than that of Obama’s last year in office. During the Trump’s third year, FY2019, the number rose to 859,501, and during Trump’s last year in office, FY2020, the number was 405,036. During Trump’s 4-year tenure, the total of illegal entries was 1,979,210.

Joe Biden became President in FY2021, and the illegal entries totaled 1,662,167. The following year, the number rose to 2,214,652, and in Biden’s third year, FY2023, the number was more than 3.2 million.

Since Biden took office, 6.2 million illegal entries have occurred at our southern border. In his first year, more than 400% more illegals entered the country than in Trump’s last year, and nearly as many as in Trump’s total after four years as President.

A report released on October 26th by the House Committee on Homeland Security contains these Key Facts:

* Encounters at the Southwest border in FY2023 increased over 40% since FY2021, 4% compared to FY2022, and more than 100% compared to FY2019.

* Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported a 40% increase compared to September 2021 and 18% compared to September 2022. 

*Since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million encounters nationwide and 6.2 million encounters at the Southwest border, in addition to 1.7 million known gotaways.  

*In FY2023, 169 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watchlist were stopped trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry. 18 were apprehended in September alone.

*So far in FY2023, CBP has arrested 35,433 aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants nationwide, including 598 known gang members, 178 of those being MS-13 members. 

*In FY2023, CBP, including Air and Marine Operations, has seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl, coming across the Southwest border—enough to kill more than 6 billion people.

An opinion article authored by Simon Hankinson appearing in The Hill last month lays the blame for this catastrophe at the feet of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “It is hard to think of a single appointed official in U.S. history who has done more harm to this country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and rule of law than this one man,” he wrote. But as culpable as Mayorkas is, he must share the blame with his boss, Joe Biden, who approves of his “work.”

In contrast to today’s goings-on, here are the opinions of two prominent Democrats from several years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY had this to say about border security and illegal entries to our country in 2009, during Barack Obama’s presidency.

“People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens are people who should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.

“Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.

“Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress in dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now.

“When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers,’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

“If you don’t think it’s illegal, you’re not going to say it. I think it is illegal, and wrong.”

And in 2007 during George W. Bush’s presidency, then-Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, offered this advice.

“Ladies and gentlemen, no great country can say it is secure without being able to control its borders. Period. What I would do about it is what I proposed to do about it almost 13 year ago. 

“I would radically ramp up the number of border security guards we have, the use of electronic surveillance material we have to guard the border, and the number of what they call ‘virtual fences.’ They’re not really fences. Virtual fences from aerostat balloons … whereby we could control the border much, much better.”

Very wise words from men who today hold two of our most important government positions, and who are now 180 degrees in opposition to their sensible positions of several ago.

This crisis can be ended fairly quickly if Biden would reverse his Executive Orders that changed so many things about border enforcement, by enforcing existing laws, restoring “remain in Mexico” and Title 42, and following Texas’ example of blocking the border. 

Globalist elites meet again this month in Davos, Switzerland

January 23, 2024

You may have heard a good bit lately about what’s going on in Davos, Switzerland. It is the annual winter conference of the World Economic Forum (WEF). For many, perhaps most people, the WEF is just a name without definition.

So here, from Britannica online, is some background: “World Economic Forum, international organization that convenes an annual winter conference, traditionally in Davos, Switz., for the discussion of global commerce, economic development, political concerns, and important social issues. Some of the world’s most prominent business leaders, politicians, policy makers, scholars, philanthropists, trade unionists, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attend the meetings. Headquarters are in Cologny, near Geneva.”

This annual get-together ran five days, from January 15 through 19, under the theme “Rebuilding Trust.” Topics for discussion fell under three headings: global, industry and economic.

Taking part in the WEF were more than 300 public figures, which included over 60 heads of state and government, plus there was representation from key regions of the world. 

Leading the conference was Klaus Schwab, who is the founder and executive chairman of the organization. Schwab founded a meeting of European corporate leaders interested in making their businesses competitive with American firms way back in 1971. In his day job, Schwab is “a German scholar of business policy and a professor at the University of Geneva.”

The name “World Economic Forum” became effective in 1987, reflecting “the importance of global economic and political issues, including poverty, environmental problems, and international conflict, which it immediately began working to resolve,” the Britannica article tells us.

However, like what happened with the United Nations, the actions of the WEF are not always in the best interest of everyone in the world that it hopes to rule one day.

On that topic, Britannica had this to say. Despite some successes, “the WEF was heavily criticized in the late 1990s by antiglobalization activists, who accused the organization of disenfranchising poorer countries through an excessive promotion of global capitalism. 

“The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington labeled the group ‘a watering hole for the elite’ and coined the term ‘Davos Man,’ a pejorative reference to the WEF member, whom he believed possessed an erroneous sense of international identity. Protests over the group’s activities continued into the early 21st century, and the group responded by extending forum invitations to NGOs and developing countries and introduced the Open Forum Davos (2003), a free public forum held in parallel with the WEF.”

Sometimes American presidents attend, and sometimes not. President Joe Biden did not attend this year, and former President Donald Trump did not attend this year. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush all skipped Davos during their presidencies.

However, some administrative and Congressional personnel did attend. Democrats who attended this year include: Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, climate chief John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.

Republicans that attended include: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, and Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona also attended.

One other person from the U.S. to attend and speak to the group was 

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. Talking about the next U.S. administration, he said: “I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” he said. “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.”

Dealing with specifics of what the WEF does that is so disagreeable, he said 

that it promotes illegal immigration as a positive for our country, and that it does not present a public safety threat in large American cities. He argued against the prevailing idea of the WEF that climate change is catastrophic. 

The WEF’s soft attitude toward China brought this comment from Roberts. “China, the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.” 

To a group of global elitists who firmly believe they are capable of deciding for all of the rest of us what the entire world must do to sustain the Earth, these and the other wonderful ideas they conjure up may seem beneficial. But as Roberts pointed out, some of them are just plain dangerous for the United States.

And, we should take note that the WEF’s ideas closely match those of the Biden administration.

The United States has for nearly 250 years had a government design where the people of the country determine its course. That has worked very well. And despite the current efforts to undermine that unique design, it is still the best ever. We must not surrender to a global elite.

The younger generations have serious problems affecting the nation

January 16, 2024

Many of us who have been around for a while are somewhat befuddled by the attitude some in the younger generations have about their country. An article credited to a 26-yearold female college graduate student addresses this situation. The article is titled, “My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!”

The article was written within the last few years, and the author is listed as Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA.

Not far into the article she wrote that the infamous “Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, ‘An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.’ Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in.”

Her reaction was, “When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided.”

She noted that people in the coffee shop where she was working at the time were talking among themselves, ordering food and being served rather quickly, working on their laptops, and watching cars go by. They can and probably have ordered something from an online retailer very easily, and had it at their door in a day or two. Her peers were enjoying what they had chosen to do at that time, but did not appreciate the things that made that enjoyable. They took them for granted.

That is when she realized that we are fortunate to live in the “most privileged time in the most prosperous nation.” But she noted that so many people are clueless about that.

Our freedoms, our many features in life, like the many modern objects at our disposal, are not considered as special among many of our young people. And she cited some headlines of presidential candidates who are campaigning on policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism.

“We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty-One Times!!!” She added that few Americans are truly poor by global standards.

We simply do not appreciate how good we have it and are ungrateful for all that we have. She attributes much of this to the rising popularity of socialistic thinking among her generation. 

“My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity,” she said. “I know this first hand, I went to college.” She sees things a bit differently than her peers, as she grew up with a much different understanding of her country.

She believes that her generation has truly seen prosperity, but they have only experienced prosperity. They have no direct memories, or even second-hand stories of the great depression or the two world wars, or the wars in Korea or Vietnam. They have not experienced the tragedies of communism and socialism.

And somehow, many of the young Americans were not taught — or did not learn — the true history of America.

While America has many blessings and freedoms, that does not mean that everything is perfect. Far from it. We are a very politically divided nation. We are currently fighting high inflation, ridiculous numbers of illegal aliens coming into the country at will, and we have a political party that leans far to the left that wants to fundamentally transform our government structure from its current one-of-a-kind design that has put the U.S. at the top among the world’s nations to another system that has never achieved anything near to what America has.

Having always had the internet, their own cars, smartphones, laptop computers and so many other wonderful things that they take for granted, they are entitled, but have no idea that they are. They do not understand the comparatively good life that exists today. 

Many of them expect to be paid a good wage just because they have a job, without regard to their particular background, the value of the job they have, and their level of performance. Merit is not a factor to many of them; diversity, equity and inclusion rule.

Our military is suffering from failure to attract enough young people into the services. Many of these young people are unable to pass the requirements to join the military, while others are not inclined to join.

This is a very serious problem, as we are in a time where our adversaries are testing our resolve, such as the Iranian proxy Hezbollah pushing the limits of our patience with attacks on our bases in the mid-east. We must have a military that can address such things and conquer them. And we must have an administration that is not afraid to use it.

Many of the younger generations are poorly prepared to succeed in their country, and do not understand its design, its nearly 250 years of great success, and the degree of personal freedom designed into it.

This is serious problem.

The U.S. suffers under a soft-on-crime wave among prosecutors

January 9, 2024

Many people today apparently do not understand the concept of law and order. Our country has a body of laws that were enacted to prohibit conduct that is harmful to the people and to our country.

When those laws are broken, our justice system provides for penalties to be imposed on the guilty. They teach the wrongdoer a lesson and serve to discourage people from indulging in the unlawful activities.

However, these penalties and deterrents only work when they are implemented as the law requires. 

Police and other law enforcement personnel have the duty to find those who have broken laws, and charge them with criminal offenses. Certain positions that are filled by election and by appointment exist to enforce these laws and to apply charges and penalties as appropriate, such as prosecuting attorneys and judges. 

These persons have the sworn duty to apply the laws without fear or favor. Today, and not for the first time, we find public officials who do not apply all of the laws that exist, and when they do, they are sometimes not done fairly.

An article in U.S. News last month explained that there was a tidal wave of progressive prosecutor victories several years ago that campaigned on policies that seek different types of penalties than now exist. These largely consist of counseling and treatment regimens, monetary fines, parole or community service, rather than jail time. 

“A Republican state attorney general is asking members of Congress to probe a Justice Department grant that he says benefits a ‘radically progressive’ group responsible for training prosecutors in ways to implement a soft-on-crime approach to their work,” a Fox News online report begins.

Letters to Congress were sent by Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey asking members "to further investigate and eliminate funding for programs that are counter-productive to public safety" and that "aid or encourage prosecutors to abuse discretion by refusing to bring criminals to justice."

In the letters Bailey described a situation where St. Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner, who he described as "a progressive soft-on-crime prosecutor," released a repeat criminal on bail. The man then hit a young girl with his vehicle at a high speed, resulting in her having her legs amputated.

After much criticism and evidence of dereliction of duty, Gardner resigned from the office.

A case in Austin, Texas, features District Attorney Joseph Garza. Roberto Rangel was arrested for his 7th DUI, that resulted in the deaths of two people in their early 20s. But Garza reduced the charges and bond amount, allowing Rangel back on the streets. 

One of the most notorious of these soft-on-crime prosecutors is Los Angeles County, California District Attorney George Gascon, who was elected in 2020 and is up for reelection this year.

After just one year in office, criticism of Gascon was so intense that a recall campaign was begun. While it failed, more than a half-million signatures have been collected for another recall.

Gascon now faces a challenge at the polls from an attorney that works in his office. John McKinney said Gascon “values the rights of offenders more than victims.”

He added that a lot of crime in Los Angeles County is “not committed out of desperation,” but because “people see an opportunity” due to the soft-on-crime atmosphere created by Gascon.

“We’re down 250 attorneys from what we’re budgeted for,” he said. “We have been handcuffed, gagged … and told to do things that are counterproductive and counter to justice. We’ve had enough. We want change.”

We have seen a dramatic and dangerous move away from holding people to account for their criminal behavior.

These idiotic ideas have produced a significant rise in crime in some cities and states. Victims are not being given the satisfaction of seeing those who have robbed them, assaulted them, damaged their property, or perhaps injured or killed a family member get the satisfaction of the guilty parties being punished.

People in important positions in the justice system don’t punish many instances of wrong-doing, but try to punish some people when they haven’t been convicted or even charged. These people also want to make things more difficult for law enforcement personnel and agencies, and even sometimes support closing down prisons.

And then there are those who use criminal prosecutions for ill. While former President Donald Trump may indeed be guilty of the crimes he allegedly committed years ago, why have those charges only been brought now as Trump seeks the presidency in 2024?

And why did the Maine Secretary of State — Shenna Bellows, a Democrat — decide that she is capable of determining guilt, and that she has the authority to determine that Trump is guilty of “insurrection,” even though he has not been found guilty of it in a court, or even officially charged with the crime?

If you don’t like some laws, you may work to change them, but you must not be allowed to ignore them. You must be required act properly when you are in an official capacity.

If the people are expected to honor the actions of public officials, then those officials must act honorably, legally, fairly and sensibly.

Christmas message of hate spoils the annual celebration

January 2, 2024

On Christmas Eve, a unique description of the event which is celebrated on Christmas Day was posted on Instagram.

"In the story of Christmas, Christ was born in modern-day Palestine under the threat of a government engaged in a massacre of innocents," the post begins. 

"He was part of a targeted population being indiscriminately killed to protect an unjust leader's power. Mary and Joseph, displaced by violence and forced to flee, became refugees in Egypt with a newborn waiting to one day return home. 

"Thousands of years later, right-wing forces are violently occupying Bethlehem as similar stories unfold for today's Palestinians, so much so that the Christian community in Bethlehem has canceled this year's Christmas Eve celebrations out of both safety and respect.

"And yet, also today, holy children are still being born in a place of unspeakable violence - for every child born, of any identity and from any place, is sacred. Especially the children of Gaza.

"The entire story of Christmas and Christ himself is about standing with the poor and powerless, the marginalized and maligned, the refugees and immigrants, the outcast and misunderstood without exception.

"This high Christian holiday is about honoring the precious sanctity of a family that, if the story were to unfold today, would be Jewish Palestinians. Merry Christmas. May there be peace on Earth, amen," the post concluded.

This version of the Christmas story has little to do with truth and history, but has much to say about the anti-Semitic mania that is now sweeping our country.

This particular work of fiction is representative of the illusions possessed by those who hate Jews and blame Israel for the bloody savagery unleashed upon it by the Hamas terrorist organization on October 7.

It was created by one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat Representative from the state of New York. She is casually known as “AOC.”

Her diatribe created quite a stir, both from supporters and opponents of Israel and the Jewish people. One of her critics is Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, former presidential candidate, and someone who knows the real story.

Huckabee noted correctly that “Jesus was Jewish.” And he also provided some accuracy about Palestine and other relevant factors.

“’Palestinian’ meant Jewish people until 1962 when Yasser Arafat co-opted the term and created a nation and made up a people, and called them the ‘Palestinians,’ who previously were Jordanian,” he noted.

“This is a person that is utterly ignorant about what she is talking about, and she may ought to stick to something she knows, like bartending,” he said. “She has no clue about the history of the Middle East, Jesus, the Jewish people, the State of Israel, or virtually anything else that she talked about in her post,” Huckabee said.

Speaking about the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel, he said that it’s the most “uncivilized act of atrocity that we have probably seen in our lifetime.” “And for anybody to defend this and scream ‘from the river to the sea,’ it’s not just anti-Semitism, it’s anti-humanity. This is evil.”

Since the slaughter and barbarism committed by Hamas last October, the United States has seen many pro-Palestinian/Hamas, anti-Israel protests. Many of them have been and are on college campuses.

There, Jewish students have been threatened and unable to move about freely, even to the point of having to miss classes. College administrations seemed unconcerned with this situation.

Recently, holiday travelers were heavily inconvenienced by protests blocking roads to airports, resulting in many travelers missing their flights.

In desperation, many of these people left their blocked vehicles and walked through the protesters trying to get to the gate before their flight took off.

Earlier in the year, a group of pro-Palestinian/Hamas protesters disrupted the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, and vandalized the New York Public Library, sparking a wave of outrage.

Hundreds of demonstrators disrupted the Macy's Parade by gluing their hands to the pavement in the center of Sixth Avenue. Dressed in white jumpsuits, they were covered in fake blood. Some of them went to the library, and sprayed the words “free Palestine” in spray paint on the building, and damaged the buildings columns.

Exactly how this criminal behavior helps the Palestinians, or Hamas, is left to the imagination.

America still prides itself as a nation with freedom of speech protected in the U.S. Constitution. Yes, speech is still a protected right, despite the fact that some media are allowed to censor some speech. 

But the question is: why do these anti-Semites insist on blocking traffic and indulging in other criminal activities while exercising that right?

* * *

As we begin a new year, let us hope that 2024 returns the nation to the good old days of 2020, when prices were better, the southern border was more secure, we were not so illogically focused on the false hope of electric vehicles and green energy “saving the world,” and we were more focused on preserving the great country our founders had given us than on fundamentally transforming the United States of America into just one more socialist failure.

Fear and desperation define the Democrats’ election strategy

December 26, 2023

In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before of as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.

Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.

The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President" under the 14th Amendment.

There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the Court’s action.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.” “This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen.”

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. commented that "Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024 that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot."

 “We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next President of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”

Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax "National Report," said the following: "In the 60 years I've been practicing and teaching law, I've never seen a decision that's so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd," 

Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, "The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong."

He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.

"If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there's a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate," he said. "But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy."

Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.

1. Trump didn’t hold an applicable office

2. He was not charged, let alone convicted, for ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’

3.  Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.

Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”

Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the Court.

The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.

A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”

It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.

This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?

If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.

What happens when professional ethics are replaced by politics

December 19, 2023

Over the last few years, we have heard from federal government agency employees, former and current, telling about their experiences doing and/or witnessing improper things in dealing with serious and sensitive matters.

These whistleblower’s allegations, if true, paint a troubling picture of how federal government agencies often work to the benefit of one group at the expense of another group.

These alleged activities are the epitome of what our government is not supposed to be. The government must be a fair, balanced and just organization that serves the interests all of the people.

Like the government, the news media is expected to perform its duties in a fair and balanced manner, and make certain that opinion and news reporting are clearly separate.

The Founders of this nation thought that a free press was so critical that they granted protection to do its job properly in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, along with the guarantee of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But as with so many of our noble and cherished traditions, the honesty and integrity of the nation’s news media has been abandoned by far too many of its practitioners.

Recently, a news story broke regarding the New York Times. The Times once was regarded as the greatest newspaper in the world. It had become known as the Gray Lady. It has since become regarded as politically biased, and a weapon of the left.

The internal workings of the Times was the topic of a cover story published in The Economist by senior editor James Bennet titled, "When The New York Times Lost Its Way."

Bennet worked at the Times for many years, most recently as its editorial page editor. He was forced to resign in 2020 after he published an article written by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. The article stirred a great deal of emotion among the Times’ staff, due to its non-left content, prompting the paper’s publisher asking him to resign. 

Cotton, who had served in the U.S. Army, had suggested using military troops to protect businesses under assault by Black Lives Matter rioters following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer.

In the story in The Economist, Bennet described how as the Times moved leftward, he was encouraged to attach “trigger warnings” to conservative opinion pieces to alert the paper’s leftist readers about material that may offend them.

"It was a frenzied time in America," Bennet wrote. "It was the kind of crisis in which journalism could fulfill its highest ambitions of helping readers understand the world, in order to fix it, and in the Times’s Opinion section, which I oversaw, we were pursuing our role of presenting debate from all sides."

Comparing the current attitude of Times’ reporters to that of his time as a reporter, Bennet commented that today’s reporters "may know a lot about television, or real estate, or how to edit audio files ... many Times staff have little idea how closed their world has become, or how far they are from fulfilling their compact with readers to show the world ‘without fear or favor.’”

And in citing his former paper’s increasing bias he called attention to the Wall Street Journal, saying that the Times could “learn something” from its rival.

The Journal, he wrote, “has maintained a stricter separation between its news and opinion journalism, including its cultural criticism, and that has protected the integrity of its work," concluding his cover story.

Although the Times’ leftist orientation has been well recognized and discussed for many years, the actual experience of a long-time and ranking former employee adds much credibility to that belief.

It is a further sad commentary on the condition of many of our news media that an editor of a major newspaper lost his job for actually doing his job: presenting all sides of an issue so that readers would be equipped to make sensible, informed judgements about that issue.

Deliberately burying opinions that differ from the chosen narrative, fearing that those opinions will be accepted by your readers, is cowardly. And, it is un-American.

Back in 1997 the Carnegie-Knight Task Force began a national conversation to identify and clarify the principles of proper journalism. After four years of research, a Statement of Shared Purpose that identified nine principles was released. The sixth principle is: It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

It reads: “The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.”

How wonderful it would be if the instructors, students, and practitioners of journalism would adopt this concept.

Our government has grown beyond what it was intended to be

December 12, 2023

After the Revolutionary War when the Founders were working on a governing document, they worked hard to not only develop a good design, but a design that protected the people from a government that could control everything they did and thought.

The design they came up with was spectacular, creating a nation governed by a philosophy of limited government and individual freedom. It had three co-equal branches: the legislative branch to pass needed and beneficial laws; an administrative branch to run the country and enforce the laws; and a judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws.

The design was not perfect, but included a mechanism to amend the Constitution to make it better. Of course, the success of the design depended upon those working in government: the employees and appointed and elected officials. It was expected that everyone involved would understand and support the design.

But, as fate would have it, some politicians and bureaucrats have their own ideas about what should be done, and how. Consequently, the government has grown in size and power, well beyond what the Founders imagined. Still, despite the excesses of the politicians and bureaucrats, many of whom were honestly trying to make things better, the government has grown too big and too powerful.

Columnist George Will in a recent column provided some insight into where we are, discussing a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that could be a start to changing things back toward the original design. The column started with a quote from James Madison in Federalist 47. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

He then went on to discuss the case, but used an example of bureaucratic/administrative overreach, and how such behavior weakens what was and could again be the best governmental design ever.

The example he used describes the typical enforcement activities of some federal agencies, in this case the Federal Trade Commission, as published in the Harvard Law Review.

“The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. 

“If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semiautonomous Commission administrative law judge. 

“If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. 

“But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.”

In this case, and many other similar instances, even if the rules in force have been assumed to be appropriate, or found to be appropriate by the courts, the behavior of the government agency in being the only party prosecuting the rule breaking, and deciding whether things are right or not, is more than just a little heavy-handed.

This is precisely what Madison was referring to in the Federalist article. When the government makes the rules, adjudicates the rules, decides the outcome and also the penalties, the people are not being fairly or constitutionally dealt with. 

In a government set up to be fair in its dealings with the people, it is clearly not in the best interest of the people when the politicians and bureaucrats work under the table to increase their power over the people, the very people they are elected and hired to serve.

In the example cited, and likely many others we may not have heard about, what is the difference between life in the United States, and in some third world or authoritarian regime? Realistically, we are not there yet, but have been walking in that direction.

What we find and have observed for a long time is a strong effort on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to engage in what former President Barack Obama promised during his 2008 campaign: “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” 

There have been efforts to pack the Supreme Court; do away with the Electoral College; replace the local and state government control of elections with federal control of elections; move away from dependable energy sources; end our energy independent status; heavily restrict or ban citizen gun ownership; dictate what type of light bulbs and other conveniences and appliances we may have; and effectively open our southern border to all who want to enter, for whatever ends they may seek.

Our country is weaker and further from its original design than in many decades. Or, perhaps, ever.

Biden’s weak policies increase our risk of terrorist activity

December 5, 2023

No objective person can look at the chaos at the southern border and not be alarmed. Of course, the Biden administration’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, insists that the border is closed.

However, the New York Times reported in October that “Migrants were caught crossing the southern border of the United States more times in the past year than in any other year since at least 1960, when the government started keeping track of the data.

“It is the third record-setting year in a row,” and there were “more than 2.4 million apprehensions in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended in September. That tops the previous record, set a year earlier, of more than 2.3 million, according to government data released on Saturday. During the 2021 fiscal year, there were more than 1.7 million apprehensions.”

Question for Mayorkas: If 2.3 and 2.4 million people can enter the country illegally in two consecutive years, and those numbers have set records for illegal entry going back 50 years, how many illegal entries constitute a situation where the border could reasonably be considered open?

No doubt the response will be: crickets.

And while states on the border are suffering immensely, and illegals are being transported around the country by the federal government, even the sanctuary states and cities are beginning to understand the pain of these lax federal policies, and want action to be taken.

Critics point out that while many or maybe most of these illegal aliens merely seek a better life, many of them have other intentions: trafficking children, women, and drugs; gang violence; and worse. 

In former President Donald Trump’s final 32 months in the White House, Border Patrol agents apprehended 1.9 million illegal aliens. By contrast, in the first 32 months of President Joe Biden’s tenure, the Border Patrol apprehended 6.3 million illegal aliens.

In addition to the millions of illegals apprehended, there have been 1.5 million “gotaways,” illegals that were spotted and counted, but not apprehended. As the number of those apprehended increases, so does the number of gotaways. We don’t know who they are or why they came. And we don’t know where they went.

Illegals on the terror watch list that have been apprehended have increased in number since fiscal year 2017, when two were caught. In 2018, there were six; in 2019 there were none; and in 2020 there were three.

And then the increases began. In 2021 - 15; in 2022 - 98; in 2023 - 169.

If that by itself isn’t bad enough, wait until you see which countries they are coming from.

From October 1, 2021 to Oct. 4, 2023 some 73,000 “Special Interest Aliens” entered the country from places including Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Syria. 

In the first half of October of this year, more than 30 came from Iran and Pakistan each. More than 100 came from Russia. Almost 2,000 came from China.

Are any of these illegals associated with Iranian terrorist proxies, like Hamas or Hezbollah? And many of these illegals are military age males. And what about those from China, our most serious adversary?

This is the reality that the feeble and perilous Biden border policy has produced.

To call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil,” Wray said.

“Terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated flow and increasingly complex security environment to enter the United States,” said the fiscal year 2024 threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security.

And, FBI Director Christopher Wray told reporters on a call in October that “Here in the U.S., we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or their foreign terrorist organizations could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.”

The weakness demonstrated by the Biden administration on the southern border has not gone without notice around the world. Since the butchery carried out in the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, Iranian terrorist proxies have attacked U.S. military installations in the region 75 times. The U.S. response has been meek and scarce. The only good news is that while some military personnel have been injured, none have been killed.

This sort of under-reaction will not deter future attacks; they invite more. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the end of October, two weeks after the attacks began, “Iran wants to hide its hand and deny its role in these attacks against our forces. We will not let them. If attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. forces continue, we will not hesitate to take further necessary measures to protect our people.”

Austin’s words had no effect on Iran and its terrorist proxies; the attacks have continued. And the tough talk threatening “further necessary measures” has not led to one significant retaliatory strike.

Biden hasn’t been moved to stand up to Iran and order an action to exact a substantial price from the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. And until Iran is shown that we will back up our words with significant action, these attacks will continue, and likely get worse.

Is social justice really a serious problem in the country?

November 28, 2023

Social justice is an old concept that has become a hot topic lately.

The Britannica website offers this description: “Social justice, in contemporary politics, social science, and political philosophy, the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”

Human Rights Careers online offers the following: “The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use ‘social justice’ and ‘human rights’ interchangeably.”

And, from Wikipedia: “Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals' rights are recognized and protected.”

While the idea of social justice in America has involved everyone having an equal opportunity to make their own choices about their future, there is a faction that believes that certain groups have been discriminated against, and therefore deserve what the Wikipedia description says: equal distribution of things, not equal opportunity to pursue things.

Yes, discrimination does exist. But is it really a major problem?

A new book analyzes the “social injustice” that many people claim to be rampant in America. Titled “Social Justice Fallacies,” the author is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a brilliant thinker. 

Comments on the cover of the book say that “The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons.”

“’Social Justice Fallacies’ reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.”

“History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

Those errors were the result of human fallibility, due to the fervor of the crusader mindset, which often is so strong in its followers that they make serious mistakes in their efforts to correct a problem, including ignoring contrary evidence.

In the book Sowell details the problems with this error-ridden theory.

Addressing the idea that everyone should get the same opportunities, or the same amounts of all things, he notes that people with different backgrounds do not necessarily even have a desire for the same things, and certainly do not want to do whatever may be necessary to achieve them. This may perhaps be the case even if those things are given to them.

An example he cites is that some social justice warriors blame sexual discrimination for the fact that women are statistically under-represented among Silicon Valley employees. But a step further into the data shows that the work done in these companies requires engineering skills, and women receive less than 30 percent of the needed engineering degrees. Why? Because they do not choose to study engineering. 

People are not all the same. There are natural and lifestyle differences that play a part in a person’s capabilities and desires. Geographic areas encourage different lifestyles and behavior. Living in Florida is not like living in Alaska, or Iowa, or West Virginia. Growing up in farm country is different than growing up in a big city.

A person’s family and the family’s experiences most often play a major part in how children develop, and how they pursue life.

Sowell wrote that “children raised where there is only one parent present have been found in a number of studies to have a higher incidence of many social problems.” Boys without fathers have a higher incidence of things like truancy and murder. Girls raised by one parent have a higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. 

So, the question of why Billy made the football team and Joe didn’t; why Mary was the valedictorian and Freda wasn’t; or why Jane got the promotion to sales manager over Frank, probably was not the result of discrimination. There are many factors that may be involved in most outcomes other than race, ethnicity or gender.

In seeking persons to fill advanced medical research positions, Sowell posits, do we want equal numbers from all population groups, and hope for the best? Or will we make sure that we get those from whatever backgrounds who have demonstrated a mastery of medical science?

He wrote, “But neither society nor government comprehends or controls all the many and highly varied circumstances — including a large element of luck — that can influence the fate of individual classes or nations.”

And, “Circumstances beyond our control are major factors in economic and other inequalities. Trying to understand causalities is not necessarily the same as looking for someone to blame.”

Is the alleged “white supremacy” real and the result of racial discrimination? Is it because white people make up 59 percent of the population? Or, is it a false flag promoted for some political purpose?

Sowell shows us that social justice is another politically correct concept that causes more problems than it solves.

A Tale of 2 Nations: Ancient Rome and the United States of America

November 21, 2023

Rome is generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization and Christian culture. It was a republic — as is the United States of America —from about 509 BCE (Before the Common Era) until 27 BCE.

It was responsible for many things that we now see as normal and important aspects of our country, including state institutions, law, cultural values, religious beliefs, technological advances, and engineering. Rome was unique, espousing the principle of moderation in politics, unheard of at that time.

It became the most powerful state in the world in a fairly short time through a combination of military power, political flexibility, and economic expansion. And it survived for nearly 500 years. 

The Roman republic may have been the model for, or at least an influence in the formation of the United States of America. It had a separation of powers, with the Romans and their magistrates, Senate, and assemblies and tribunes. In America we have a president, Congress, and a federal court system.

A republic with as long a life as Rome experienced has become somewhat of a target for America: Can America last as long as Rome did? Perhaps we can learn from Rome’s demise, and behave accordingly.

The primary reasons cited as responsible for Rome’s downfall are: 
* government corruption and political instability; 
* economic and social problems, such as the loss of traditional values; 
* the weakening of its military; 
* the weakening of its border, resulting in an invasion by Germanic tribes.

About America’s point of evolution, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote the following in The Fourth Turning, An American Prophecy. “Though we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within.” 

“Not long ago, America was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less,” they continued. “Around World War II we were proud as a people but modest as individuals. Fewer than two people in ten said ‘yes’ when asked, ‘Are you a very important person?’ Today, more than six in ten say ‘yes.’ Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled.”

This assessment seems pretty much on the mark. And it was written in 1997. Did we turn the corner and change our ways, refocusing on the positive aspects of our country’s design? Or, are we still heading down the same road to demise as ancient Rome?

Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse. 

We see our government growing in size and imposing more and more restrictions on “we, the people.” Parents who express their displeasure with the schools that their taxes support are sometimes labeled “domestic terrorists.”  Inflation resulting from poor policies has hurt everyone in the country.

Our government has adopted the practice of cancelling some good things that were done in the past. Like reversing our recently re-achieved position of energy independence, and being a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Canceling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, that cost 11,000 jobs, 8,000 of which were union jobs. 

The government also temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which reduced U.S. oil production so that we have to make up the difference by purchasing from other countries. These actions also forced other countries who were buying fuels from us to now also purchase them elsewhere. 

The disaster at the southern border allows tens of thousands of people to illegally enter the country every month. We have little or no idea who these people are, and what their reasons are for coming here. 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from fentanyl coming in illegally. Other drugs also come in illegally. Children and women are being trafficked, and an unknown number of potential terrorists have entered from other countries. Some are on the terror watch list.

The military has leaned toward wokeness, which weakens its critical abilities. Three of the four major services are having trouble recruiting new members. 

These problems come not from the men and women in the military ranks, but the leaders. They seem to think emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex, and basing promotions on quota requirements rather than merit are good.

The government has been quietly watching as China’s highly disciplined military is growing. The influence of Iran in the attack on Israel is not being met with a sensible response, and attacks on nearby US bases are not being actively or effectively countered with actions.

Our long-standing traditions have not been passed on to younger generations. We have allowed the two-parent family to virtually disappear. Our education system and news media are suffering from significant corruption. The attitude of so many younger people to support Hamas terrorism and condemn Israel’s justified response is mind boggling.

There is still time to correct these grave problems, but not very much. If we don’t soon restore the original and unique American spirit and its sensible values, we will follow in the tracks of the Roman Empire, and be nothing more than a sad story of stupidity in future history books.

Where does the hate for Jewish people on college campuses come from?

November 14, 2023

NOTE: Updated version of column that should have run last week.

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes, or elsewhere; presenting history lessons that are politically oriented; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel and American civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel, or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But sometimes violent expressions of hatred toward a particular group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on so many campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as every nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of Hamas terrorists committing these savage acts against civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological positions among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis had no claim over the land they have lived in since 1,000 BC.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel, not Hamas.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideas onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have refused to respond, other people in positions of responsibility are critical of what is going on.

Last month, a bipartisan group of six U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. 

Later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” 

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.

Now, some colleges have finally begun to act. Columbia University has suspended two pro-Palestinian student groups from campus for repeatedly breaking rules on holding campus events.

Meanwhile, the tone-deaf Biden administration has been promoting a project to counter Islamophobia which, if it is a problem, it is a tiny one when compared to the huge problem of anti-Semitism. Last week, the White House finally added anti-Semitism to the program.

Anti-Semitism is disturbingly high on many college campuse

 

November 7, 2023

NOTE: Due to an error at the Daily Telegraph this column did not run. Instead, the BDT ran last week's column two weeks in a row. This column was updated and ran on 11-14-23

What is happening on a lot of the country’s college and university campuses these days is quite troubling. Back in the “good old days” young people went to college to study a subject with which they could get a job that would provide them with enough income to live a decent life. They went there to get educated, and the school faculty and administration were heavily focused on that mission.

In far too many schools these days, there are majors that do not prepare students to get a decent paying job, if they can even get a job in their major.

Many colleges are more focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion; everyone being identified by their chosen pronouns; making sure students are not offended in their classes; being presented with history lessons that stray from real history; and being instructed on what to think, rather than how to think.

A new problem has taken over the news since the October 7 evil massacre of 1,400 innocent Israel civilians by Hamas terrorists from Palestine. 

Somehow, an existing anti-Israel sentiment on many campuses has resulted in the advocates of this mindset blaming Israel for retaliating for the Hamas savagery, instead of condemning the barbarians for murdering civilian men, women and children. Some of the children were babies and some of the men and women were elderly. 

The subsequent protests of hundreds or thousands of misguided students on several campuses has produced dangerous threats of violence against Jewish students, whether they are from Israel or even America. 

College administrations have inexplicably been less than responsive to these threats and the vile protests. Yes, allowing expressions of thoughts and feelings is permissible, even encouraged, particularly on college campuses where students are learning about adult life and their chosen major. Such speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. 

But expressions of hatred toward a particular person or group of persons is not permissible, and supporting terrorism is unacceptable. Those activities should have been stopped immediately.

How did such a huge and violent hatred of Israel come to exist on college and university campuses? A hatred so strong that the haters do not condemn savage terrorism, but condemn Israel for responding to it, as any nation has the right and duty to do.

Perhaps the following examples will help explain how this hatred came about.

A Cornell professor publicly expressed his opinion of watching Hamas terrorists commit these savage acts against Israeli civilians. It was “exhilarating” and “energizing,” he said. Unfortunately, some of his fellow faculty members then went public with condemnation of Israel for things it didn’t do. Truth plays second fiddle to political and ideological preferences among many college faculty members.

People at other institutions, like Harvard, Brown, Duke, Yale, Georgetown, and Columbia, also jumped on the propaganda band wagon, blaming Israel for bombing a Palestinian hospital. Investigations found that the hospital was not bombed by Israel, but was hit by an off-course rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist partner of Hamas, both funded by Iran. 

At a rally at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an adjunct professor accused Israel of carrying out 75 years of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” against Palestinians. Later, New York City Councilman Charles Barron, a graduate of the school, claimed that Israelis, being “European converts to Judaism,” had no claim over their land.

Many people do not know what happened, or do not care, and continue to blame Israel.

Do these radical professors keep their political and ideological preferences out of their classroom activities, even though they are happy to publicly express them in ways their students and other students may have access to them? Are they part of the indoctrination of college students that has proliferated over recent years?

Deliberate efforts to influence students’ thinking processes by pushing their personal ideals onto students is not only a breach of professional integrity and a showing of low character, but is subversive when it includes un-American and anti-American ideas.

While college administrations have been reluctant to respond, criticism of what is going on exists from other people in positions of responsibility.

Last month, U.S. Senators sponsored a resolution calling on higher education leaders to engage with Jewish students and to condemn speech that incites or celebrates violence against any people based on their religious beliefs, national origin or ancestry. The group consisted of both Republicans and Democrats: Marsha Blackburn, R-TN; Jack Rosen, D-NV; James Lankford, R-OK; and Chris Van Hollen, D-MD. 

A few days later, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued this statement in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News Channel: “While we always want to protect our constitutional rights, I absolutely condemn what’s being chanted at these rallies, and I think we need leadership from our college campuses.” Citing the increasingly common idea of what is occurring on college campuses, he said, “The bottom line is, I question what’s being taught on these college campuses if we have students that don’t fully understand the brutality of a terrorist group.”

This ignorance of what happened on October 7, and the strong anti-Semitism are clear evidence that America’s values and traditions are under attack on many campuses.