Politics & Policy

We Were Sent Here to Change Everything . . . Unless Someone Dies

President Joe Biden addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via Reuters)

In response to The Rapidly Aging Democratic House Majority

Jim notes that:

Today’s New York Times has a morbid but insightful article pointing out that the Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress is dependent upon the continuing good health of quite a few elderly members.

As the Times itself observes, the history of politicians dying in office

has some Democrats worried that deaths or illnesses could derail President Biden’s efforts to pass ambitious bills through Congress, which his party controls by the narrowest margins in decades.

“Our ability to make good on Biden’s agenda is pretty much dangling by a thread,” said Brian Fallon, a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader. “I don’t think it’s uncouth to talk about it. I think it’s a reality that has to inform the urgency with which we approach those issues.”

This is true. But at no point does it seems to have occurred to Fallon and Co. that if the Democratic Party is just a couple of deaths away from being in the minority in one or both legislative chambers, then maybe it shouldn’t be trying to remake the country in the first place.


The Right Kind of Literary Tyranny

Children’s reading books on a shelf inside Widnes Library in Widnes, England, September 12, 2018. (Phil Noble/Reuters)

It never ceases to shock me, when I am speaking with parents, how many of them utter some version of the following statement: “Oh no, I could never tell my child what they are or aren’t allowed to read. They know what they like, and I don’t want to fight them on it.” Erika J. Ahern has some strong words for these parents. While her main point in the piece centers on pushing back against Amazon’s recent book-bannings, her claim that she has “exercised with Draconian vigilance” her “right to decide what literature [her] children will and will not encounter,” should catch readers’ attention. No, it is not wise to allow your children to roam freely around the library. It’s also not healthy. We don’t just let children run through the grocery store, filling a cart with candy and ice cream, do we? There is an amazing amount of junk — plenty of it insidious, plenty of it just plain stupid — sitting on those shelves. Yes, certainly, there are many literary gems that deserve our time and attention. Libraries and bookstores can be a wealth of knowledge, a place of excitement and exploration ready for the taking. But how would children know the difference between pyrite and the genuine metal if it isn’t explained to them? And why would they care, unless the beauty of that metal is shown to them?

Words matter.

Ideas matter.

For heaven’s sake, the artwork matters!

Please choose for your children, and please choose wisely.

Capital Matters

Don’t Be Fooled: The Export-Import Bank Is in the Big-Business Business

Ex-Im Bank president Fred Hochberg (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty)

I am sure many of you are thinking, “Here she goes again with another post about the Export-Import Bank.” You wouldn’t be wrong. That said, when you read stuff by me about this particular agency, you should know that it applies to many other agencies as well. I can’t monitor them all as I do the Ex-Im, and yet, I can tell you that each time I look at other programs, the same patterns of cronyism emerge — such as the fact that well-connected companies are the main beneficiaries of the program though they don’t need it, and that the benefits create serious economic distortions and are profoundly unfair.

With that in mind, here is something else that all of these programs do: They argue that they are mostly focused on small businesses. I get it, people love small businesses, so it is a good talking point. But all too often these claims are overstated or even frankly misleading. What follows is an example of the latter.

By now Ex-Im’s devotion to large corporations that do not need government support is well-established. On the foreign side, a vast majority of Ex-Im clients are large companies in higher-income countries with plenty of access to capital. On the domestic side, Ex-Im is committed to propping up large manufacturers and is especially devoted to Boeing

Notwithstanding the cronyism that underlies the bank’s business model, the agency and its supporters in Congress like to claim that Ex-Im is in the service of small businesses by pointing out that 90 percent of the transactions benefit them. Yet looking at the money, one can easily see that some 20 percent of the financing actually benefits small businesses. In fact, as Politico reported a few years back, “but not enough small businesses actually need loans for the bank to make more, even if it tried.”

These actual facts don’t stop the bank from claiming that it is all about small businesses. Adding insult to injury, this time around the agency has used the cover of the COVID-19 pandemic to provide greater handouts to large firms, even as it claims that these activities primarily benefit small businesses.

In March of last year, as the pandemic was unfolding, Ex-Im introduced four purportedly “temporary” measures that it claimed would support the U.S. economy. I wrote about these measures when they were put in place, noting that the bank’s old clients appeared to have a hand in their design. First, at least two of these measures seemed explicitly designed for Boeing.  Moreover, for one facility — the Supply Chain Financing Guarantee Program — Ex-Im eliminated the program’s target for 50 percent of suppliers to be small businesses. In addition, for both this facility and Ex-Im’s Working Capital Guarantee Program, the bank raised the amount of its guarantee from 90 percent to 95 percent, shifting more risk away from commercial banks and toward the U.S. taxpayer.

As the saying goes, there is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. So no one should be surprised that, last month, Ex-Im’s board of directors voted to renew the four programs — which it had touted last year as “temporary relief measures” — for another year. Here is how the press release reads:

Over the past year, U.S. small businesses benefited significantly from the relief measures. Since April 2020, the measures have resulted in $1 billion in EXIM working capital guarantee and supply-chain financing guarantee authorizations. In fiscal year (FY) 2021 to date, EXIM’s working capital guarantees for minority and women-owned businesses have risen to a total of $31.5 million—a 50 percent increase over the previous period in FY 2020.

This framing would lead a casual reader to assume that small businesses received a billion dollars in benefits from Ex-Im’s pandemic-related measures. A bit of digging, however, suggests otherwise. According to another Ex-Im press release, $510 million of Ex-Im’s claimed billion dollars in pandemic relief went to just one transaction: Boeing’s purchase of aircraft engines from an affiliate of the General Electric Corporation. Thus, in one fell swoop, half of Ex-Im’s overall pandemic-related support went to the bank’s two most-beloved corporations in a favored sector. Another $450 million, across two transactions, went to U.S. Steel. Freeport LNG, which is, as I mentioned last week, a large exporter of liquefied natural gas, received $50 million. Although the amount to Freeport was small compared to the giveaways to Boeing, GE, and U.S. Steel, the loan made big waves last week when the Financial Times reported how the bank used the loan to buy the U.S. gas industry’s acquiescence to an Ex-Im gas project in Mozambique. (My post about can be read here.)  

In short, in an economy as large and diverse as that of the U.S., the bulk of Ex-Im Bank pandemic-related responses went to help large corporations, including Ex-Im Bank mainstays Boeing and GE, along with Big Steel and a large energy producer. If, as the Ex-Im press release implies, small businesses were the key beneficiaries of these relief measures, why did Ex-Im eliminate the 50 percent small-business target for the Supply Chain Financing Guarantee? 

The board approved the renewal of these measures in an open meeting in April that Mercatus was able to listen to. I was struck by a few things. First, the waiver of small-business involvement in the Supply Chain Financing Guarantee Program is going to be continued, which means that large corporations will continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the Ex-Im’s COVID-19 response. Second, it seems that the two facilities explicitly designed for Boeing — the Bridge/Backstop Financing Program and the Pre-Delivery/Pre-Export Financing Program — are being renewed even though they were not used in the past year, but will sit in reserve for whenever Boeing is ready to use them. 

What I found most extraordinary, however, is a point made by an Ex-Im official on the call. He acknowledged that circumstances have changed over the past year — translation: Pandemic measures are not necessary anymore — but then he added that the COVID-19 measures were designed for specific needs. This point is dumbfounding since it is an admission that Ex-Im intended these COVID-19 relief measures not for the broad economy — and certainly not for small businesses — but really for some hand-picked corporations.  

The press release goes on to tout the benefits of the facilities to minority and women-owned businesses, noting that such businesses received $31.5 million in support so far this year. Compare that with the $1 billion that benefited large corporations, and it’s barely a rounding error. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the bank’s support for small businesses actually declined in dollar terms between 2019 and 2020, in the midst of a pandemic that pounded small businesses.

The bottom line is that as always Ex-Im is misleading Congress and the American people by claiming to be in the small business business when every step of the way, the agency takes measures to demonstrate its constant and growing commitment to large firms.

Now going back full-circle, I will ask you this: What is the probability misleading actions like the one above only happens at Ex-Im?

Politics & Policy

The Rapidly Aging Democratic House Majority

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) attend a House Democrats news conference to reintroduce the H.R.7 “Paycheck Fairness Act” on Capitol Hill, January 30, 2019. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

Today’s New York Times has a morbid but insightful article pointing out that the Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress is dependent upon the continuing good health of quite a few elderly members.

One detail that the article doesn’t lay out is that while both parties have plenty of members that are long in the tooth, the oldest members of the House are mostly Democrats.

Yes, the oldest member of the House is Alaska Republican Don Young is 87, and Hal Rogers of Kentucky is 83. But among the seasoned citizens in the Democratic House caucus, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas is 85. Grace Napolitano of California, Bill Pascrell of New Jersey are 84. Maxine Waters of California is 82, Steny Hoyer of Maryland turns 82 next month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California is 81, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, David Price of North Carolina and Allen Lowenthal of California are 80, Lucille Roybal-Allard of California and Danny Davis of Illinois are 79, and Frederica Wilson of Florida is 78.

For perspective, all of those elected officials are older than Joe Biden. Most of the House Democratic leadership has been too old to fly a commercial airliner for a decade and a half.

The increasing health risks to aging senators is somewhat less of a worry for Democrats, as most Democratic senators represent states where a Democratic governor would name an interim appointed senator.

But as the Times notes, “a single Democratic vacancy could hand Republicans committee gavels and the power to schedule votes until a Democratic successor was appointed or elected.” And in the case of Vermont, the current Republican governor, Phil Scott, is not obligated to appoint a Democrat if 79-year-old Bernie Sanders or 81-year-old Patrick Leahy cannot continue their duties. (Yes, among Vermont senators, Bernie Sanders is “the young one.”) Dianne Feinstein of California is the oldest U.S. senator, at age 87, a few months older than Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

Law & the Courts

On Guns, New York City Wants It Both Ways

North view of the Manhattan skyline from the 86th floor observation deck of the Empire State Building in midtown Manhattan in New York City, June 24, 2020. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

The Wall Street Journal reports that most of the candidates for Manhattan District Attorney are opposed to jailing people for illegal firearms possession:

As New York City grapples with rising violent crime, the Manhattan district attorney candidates are responding with progressive law-enforcement proposals that underscore how different this election is for one of the nation’s top prosecutor jobs. With few exceptions, they have floated proposals for a gun court to keep young defendants out of jail, partnerships with community-based organizations and plans to funnel prosecutor resources to assist police in solving cases.

. . .

Such policies would mark a departure from how Mr. Vance and his predecessor, Robert Morgenthau, prosecuted gun cases for four decades. For instance, suspects charged with felony possession of a loaded firearm face a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years in prison. However, when the accused has a minimal criminal history and didn’t shoot or brandish the weapon, Manhattan prosecutors typically offer a plea to a lesser felony and a two-year prison sentence.

Critics have said the candidates’ alternative approaches may be well-suited for simple possession cases but won’t keep Manhattanites safe.

In 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio created a fast-tracked gun court in Brooklyn, but shootings went up in Brooklyn in 2020.

This development, the Journal notes, is not because New York City has become increasingly peaceful:

The next Manhattan district attorney will take over the $126.1 million, 1,500-employee office after the New York Police Department recorded 468 homicides citywide in 2020, a 47% increase compared with 319 in 2019. In Manhattan, the rise in homicides was higher at 61%.

The number of shooting victims citywide nearly doubled during the same period. In Manhattan shootings increased by more than 40%, hitting low-income neighborhoods and communities of color in northern Manhattan hardest.

City and police officials say increased gang activity has contributed to the violent-crime rise, as police resources were stretched thin by the pandemic and large-scale protests over the killing of George Floyd.

This really is quite bizarre. On the one hand, we hear progressives telling us that it would be a disaster for public safety if the Supreme Court were to strike down any of New York’s draconian firearms laws. On the other, we hear progressives proposing the abolition of serious punishment for violating those draconian laws. How can this possibly make any sense? In effect, the people who wish to run New York are arguing that the city ought to have the toughest laws in the nation, but that those laws will not be meaningfully enforced against criminals. Say what you will about the looser firearms laws that obtain in, say, Texas, but at least nobody in that state is suggesting that prohibited persons should be treated leniently.

Second Amendment advocates such as myself often argue that, in practice, gun-control activists are much more interested in going after law-abiding people than in targeting criminals. By rigorously enforcing its laws, New York City has long served as an exception to this rule. If it, too, descends into magical thinking and lax administration, it will make a farce of its claim to practicality — and, in turn, of the false-but-popular idea that governments in big cities have a compelling interest in safety that outweighs the protection of our right to keep and bear arms.

Health Care

HHS Interpretation of ‘Discrimination Based on Sex’ Shows Urgency of Defeating Equality Act

(megaflopp/Getty Images)

Today, HHS announced it was reversing the Trump rule that defined “sex” as biological in order to forbid “discrimination” in health care based on sexual identity and orientation. From the HHS notice:

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Office for Civil Rights will interpret and enforce Section 1557 and Title IX’s prohibitions on discrimination based on sex to include: (1) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and (2) discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in covered health programs or activities.  The update was made in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and subsequent court decisions.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex and receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. That’s why today HHS announced it will act on related reports of discrimination,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.  “Fear of discrimination can lead individuals to forgo care, which can have serious negative health consequences. It is the position of the Department of Health and Human Services that everyone – including LGBTQ people – should be able to access health care, free from discrimination or interference, period.”

Who are they kidding? This interpretation would have been made regardless of Bostock.

But the change raises an important question. Refusing to, say, set the broken leg of a gay or transgendered person would clearly be unacceptable discrimination that I can’t imagine any religion validating.

But what about interventions that could violate a medical professional’s sincere religious beliefs about the nature of sex and morality, such as participating in transgender “transition” interventions or participating in IVF and gestational surrogacy to allow a gay couple to become parents? Those procedures unquestionably cut against long-standing religious dogmas of some faiths.

For now, that might not be a significant problem. The announcement promises that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and court rulings such as Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar will apply to the interpretation:

In enforcing Section 1557 as stated above, OCR will comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., and all other legal requirements. Additionally, OCR will comply with all applicable court orders that have been issued in litigation involving the Section 1557 regulations…

That’s good. It allows comity.

But note: The Equality Act now pending in the Senate — and which President Biden has promised to sign — would gut the RFRA as a protection in issues involving sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, abortion, etc.

That is why this legislation — and Medicare for All, which would similarly corrode medical conscience — must never become law. If they do, refusing to participate in transition procedures and other controversial medical interventions involving “sex” would be officially deemed “discrimination” and punished accordingly. That would force doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to choose between acting consistently with their religious beliefs on these controversial matters and risking crushing lawsuits, authoritarian government punishments, perhaps even being allowed to continue in their chosen professions.

Make no mistake, that is the ultimate goal of the Biden administration and politically progressive special-interest groups. Dissent and heterodox thinking on these cultural sexual issues will not be tolerated. The left intends to eviscerate the RFRA to obliterate the existing right to medical conscience and force full societal compliance with their cultural agendas. Republicans in the Senate must hold the line.

Susan Hennessey Brings Resistance Twitter to the Biden DOJ

(Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

CNN and Lawfare contributor Susan Hennessey has announced that she has been hired by the Biden-Harris Justice Department in the National Security Division. Personnel is policy. This is yet another illustration of what this administration really is. The theory of Joe Biden’s presidency, at least when his boosters are talking to centrists rather than to each other, is that Biden was the “reality is not Twitter” candidate who won the Democratic primary and the general election by appealing to normal people who do not marinate in the insanities of the Democrats’ activist base. The reality is that Biden has been more

The Federal Government’s Own Statistics Are Undermining Biden’s Arguments

President Joe Biden holds his first formal news conference in the East Room of the White House, March 25, 2021. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

This is a big week for the Biden administration. Tomorrow, the Customs and Border Protection will update the agency’s official data on April 2021 border enforcement actions. We don’t know what they will be, but CNN reported May 3, “throughout April, Customs and Border Protection has encountered an average of just under 6,000 people daily at the southern border, according to a Department of Homeland Security official, which is in line with the March average of around 5,560 people daily… During the first three weeks of April, around 122,000 people were encountered by US border authorities on the southwest border,

Politics & Policy

‘Pistol Pete’

Pete du Pont in 2011 (Public domain via Wikimedia)

No, he wasn’t called that. But I thought of him that way. I’ll get to Pete du Pont in a moment.

My Impromptus today leads with Caitlyn Jenner and California. A reality-TV star, and tabloid celebrity, can make a big splash in American politics. (“Manifestly,” I can hear WFB saying.) But is it good for us? I also write on Anthony Gonzalez, Liz Cheney, Alexei Navalny, Hugo Wolf, and more.

Pete du Pont was one of my favorite people in all of politics. (He died on Saturday, at 86.) I was a big fan when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988. He ran on what he called “damn-right ideas” – ideas that make you say, “Damn right.”

I met him for the first time in 1992. I said I was an admirer. He said, “Better not stand too close, then. I’m better from afar.” He was modest, bright, and charming.

More than once, I remarked that he was an unusual scion of wealth. Usually, they lean toward big government – governmental paternalism, noblesse oblige. But Pete du Pont was a free-market man. In this, he was like Steve Forbes – two scions of wealth, both of them strong for free markets, and hostile to socialism, etc.

Once, I asked du Pont about this. He said that, when he was in Congress (1971 to 1977), he was fairly friendly to big government. But when he became a governor (the governor of Delaware, from 1977 to 1985), he really learned. The experience changed him a lot, he said.

He also told me about the first du Ponts to emigrate from France. Wonderful stories. Wish I could remember them, with precision. I never got du Pont on tape, which I regret.

I always wanted him, in a Republican administration, to be named Treasury secretary or Fed chairman. Never happened.

And I thought of him as “Pistol Pete,” yes. The name comes Pete Maravich, the basketball phenom. I was enthusiastic about both Petes – both Pistol Petes. May we have more like du Pont (and like Maravich).


Noem Pledges to Bar Action Civics and Critical Race Theory

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Fla., February 27, 2021. (Octavio Jones/Reuters)

South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has given major momentum to a new candidate pledge that not only vows support for honest and informed patriotic education, but promises to bar “action civics” (mandatory political protests for course credit) and critical race theory (CRT) (attacks on “whiteness,” “Eurocentrism,” etc.) from our schools. The pledge is sponsored by “1776 Action,” a new group founded by Adam Waldeck, a former aide to former speaker Newt Gingrich. The group enjoys support from former HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, as well as from Gingrich. After Noem signed the 1776 Action pledge, nearly every candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Virginia did the same. (Here’s a piece by Noem and Carson on the pledge she just signed.)

The 1776 Action candidate pledge and Noem’s decision to sign it are very positive developments. I’m about to count the ways. Note, however, that Noem has her work cut out for her. Even in a deep-dyed red state such as South Dakota, the threats that Noem has just pledged to battle have made shocking progress. Turning back those threats would truly make Noem a hero, but not before she undertakes the kind of action even red-state governors seldom initiate. We’ll get to the challenge Noem faces, but first let’s consider how good and important a development this pledge — signed by someone such as Governor Noem — really is.

It’s long past time that Americans dismayed by the turn to indoctrination in our schools demanded that candidates pledge to stop it. We’re familiar with the pledge device from Grover Norquist’s famous Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which prospective office-holders commit to avoid raising taxes. I’ve argued that a similar pledge strategy ought to be used in higher education, especially to commit gubernatorial candidates to appoint public university regents who would support reforms designed to bring free speech and genuine intellectual diversity to our campuses. Getting public university regents to reform universities is the most important thing we are not doing to reform higher education. A candidate pledge strategy could change that.

A pledge strategy will work for K–12 as well, and we certainly need one now that our schools are being overrun by politicized action civics and CRT. Bravo to 1776 Action for applying this much-needed but seldom-used pledge device to education.

A pledge strategy is needed for K–12 because, sad to say, education is usually relegated to third-tier status by politicians. Without a pledge, candidates won’t pay attention. True, education has rocketed to first-tier status of late, but many politicians still don’t get that. Russ Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, recently commented on Noem’s pledge and said: “Many establishment Republicans are slowly awakening to this being an issue that people care about. . . . So, if you’re a Republican, and you are not doing something to combat CRT, you have no idea where your people are.”

I’m afraid it’s worse than that. Too many members of the Republican establishment, from former Secretaries of Education, to U.S. Senators and Congressmen, to respected think tankers, have actually allied with the education left — at the worst conceivable moment. A pledge strategy just might get office-holders to ignore the decades-long follies and betrayals of the conservative education establishment and finally pay some attention to actual voters.

The 1776 Action pledge is also a sign that real resistance to indoctrination in our schools now depends on taking the battle to the state and local levels. With conservatives beginning to take school boards out of the hands of the woke, and states passing laws barring CRT, a candidate pledge is just the thing. It can and should be used for candidates at the federal, state, and local levels.

Finally, the folks at 1776 Action were clued-in enough to realize that not only a bar on CRT but a bar on action civics ought to be included in the pledge. Action civics is a deep violation of the non-partisanship that ought to characterize our public schools. Few people have even heard of it, yet a massive piece of federal legislative folly mistitled the Civics Secures Democracy Act is about to force not only CRT but also action civics on the states. This pledge can help stop that.

What does Governor Noem need to do in order to actually fulfill her pledge to block action civics and CRT in South Dakota? There are several steps she should take.

First, Noem needs to support legislation that would bar both action civics and CRT from South Dakota’s public K–12 schools. The model legislation I’ve published with the National Association of Scholars would do that, and Texas may soon pass a bill based on that model. Although South Dakota’s 2021 legislative session has ended, Governor Noem could conceivably call a special session to pass such a bill. There is a very good reason why such speedy action may be necessary.

If the disastrous Civics Secures Democracy Act should pass in Congress before South Dakota’s next legislative session convenes, it may be too late to stop both CRT and action civics from taking over the state. Leftist bureaucrats in South Dakota’s Department of Education will apply for the massive state grants funded by that proposed law. Once that happens, although Noem could pull the applications back, she would be under tremendous political pressure not to do so. At stake will be big federal grants for a small state with limited resources. That’s why it’s better to block action civics and CRT now, by state law.

Otherwise, President Biden’s outrageous new rule governing priority for history and civics grants — turbo-charged by a $6 billion federal appropriation and combined with priority criteria in the law itself — will effectively force action civics, CRT, and the 1619 Project even on red states such as South Dakota.

Unless the legislature comes back for a special session this year to address the issue, Governor Noem should prevent federal interference by ordering her Department of Education now to refrain from applying for any federal grants in history or civics until after the 2022 South Dakota legislative session. I wish I could say that this is all that needs doing, but it’s not. The rest of the story is itself an education on the deep-lying threats to America’s schools.

It turns out that South Dakota is already well along the road to crafting new statewide K–12 Social Studies standards. Unfortunately, those standards are appalling. The current draft of South Dakota Social Studies standards are filled with exercises in leftist action civics, precisely what Governor Noem has pledged to block. I doubt the governor has any idea that this is the case, nor do other governors realize that the same thing may be happening in their states.

How is such a thing possible? It’s easy! As I’ve noted previously, state education departments everywhere — including red states — are filled with leftist graduates of the same education schools currently turning out woke curricula. These education bureaucrats go to the same national conferences, drink up the uniformly leftist politics and progressivist instructional fashions, and swiftly infuse them into the standards, curricula, and regulations of their states. The political appointees who head many state education departments are often unschooled in the latest academic fashions, so tend to defer to the ridiculously biased and politically motivated “experts” they allegedly supervise. That is a big part of how schools across the country got into this mess in the first place.

South Dakota is a perfect example. There’s even a document that lays out how the pernicious practice of action civics worked its way into the state’s new draft Social Studies standards. (See the various links at the South Dakota Department of Education Civics Education webpage.) The document shows, for example, that in 2019, the South Dakota Department of Education’s “social studies specialist” attended the national conference of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), the deeply left-biased national organization of social studies teachers. In 2019, NCSS had just committed itself to the newly fashionable practice of “action civics,” and the topic was a focus of the conference.

Consider this expanded version of the presidential address at that conference by Tina Lane Heafner. NCSS president Heafner touts action civics and CRT as the great new wave of social studies. (Keep in mind that this was before last summer’s woke revolution.) Heafner offers out-and-out political advocacy via action civics as the answer to the rise of “fake news” and the problems of the Trump era. (Heafner, here, means the Democratic Party’s definition of “fake news,” and is by no means referring to mainstream media bias as a conservative would see it). Heafner praises radical neo-racist Ibram X. Kendi, rejects the idea of political neutrality in the classroom, and urges her fellow teachers to ignore the complaints of parents who object to political partisanship from teachers. She openly invites teachers to create a generation of Greta Thunbergs.

Sure enough, the action-civics activities built into the new draft South Dakota state standards are drawn from the NCSS, and built with the NCSS so-called College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework, with a few suggestions from South Dakota teachers thrown in. It’s also of note that the senior scholar involved in creating the revised South Dakota Social Studies standards, a University of South Dakota Associate Professor specializing in Social Studies methods, was once an official of the NCSS. You can find the various “civic engagement” activities, largely drawn from NCSS, embedded in the revised draft South Dakota Social Studies standards here. So, let’s have a look at action civics, South Dakota style.

Consider the exercise comparing “Soft Civic Action to Critical Civic Action.” (The word “Critical” is a tip-off to a neo-Marxist perspective, as in CRT, Critical Legal Studies, etc.) Students are asked to evaluate the impact of their volunteer activities, say, a food drive. The students must ask if food drives really solve the problem of people being unable to afford food. After students are shown the limits of volunteerism, they are to be introduced to the superior idea of “critical civic action” — i.e., the sort of policies that would “permanently solve” poverty. This, of course, is the typical socialist critique of volunteerism. (I guess the Soviets and Venezuelans must have “permanently solved” poverty.)

There are also exercises here that seem almost designed to turn students against the Electoral College and toward support of the admission of Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states. What a coincidence! These just happen to be major planks of the far-left wing of today’s Democratic Party.

Students are also urged to “participate in a dialogue as global citizens.” This is the very antithesis of the 1776 Action’s candidate pledge, which calls on our schools to cultivate the sense that Americans are “members of a national community united by our founding principles.”

The draft revised South Dakota Social Studies standards repeatedly call for the creation of a “class position statement,” or tell students to “advocate for legislation as a class.” [My emphasis.] This epitomizes the problem of action civics. Between teacher bias, peer pressure, and the machinations of the leftist non-profit groups who generously “help” students with their action-civics projects, conservative students end up intimidated and silenced by class-wide political projects. Who wants to be left out of all that fun? This is one of the reasons why public schools need to stay non-partisan and reject action civics.

The leftist bias of most activities in the standards is patent. Students are supposed to “raise awareness of how minority groups face bias in the mainstream media.” So, this is mainstream media bias? What universe are South Dakota’s education bureaucrats living in? Students are also told to “create a press release defending membership of the United States in a specific international organization.” Students are charged with studying global warming and then “debating” “whether there are civic responsibilities related to this issue.” Talk about a stacked debate question. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Yes, there are a few more moderate- or even traditional-leaning activities, no doubt from some of the South Dakota teachers who were consulted (although even in red states, many teachers are substantially to the left of their communities). The bottom line is that the lion’s share of the “civic engagement” activities tied to the new South Dakota Social Studies draft standards are clearly on the left. This is what has happened to America’s schools, even in the red states.

To be clear, I am not blaming Kristi Noem for this. The same thing happens in pretty much every state in this country, red or blue, regardless of who’s governor. Now that she has signed the wonderful 1776 Action pledge to fight action civics and CRT, however, we need rapid and decisive action from Governor Noem. She needs to sink the new, leftist South Dakota Social Studies draft standards (the unpacked document created by last summer’s work group and the NCSS C3 Framework used to create them), filled as they are with action civics and lessons tied to those exercises, and start over.

Above all, Noem needs to turn to respected education experts outside the club of leftists who dominate South Dakota’s Department of Education to craft new standards. Now that would be a pathbreaking move.

Governor Noem’s pledge to fight action civics and CRT is one of the very best and most encouraging moves I’ve seen by a political leader in a long time. It’s already had good effects in Virginia, and with luck, the pledge will soon spread nationally. As good as it is, however, that pledge won’t mean anything if Noem doesn’t take the steps necessary to truly follow through. We need state-level legislation, executive directives to the Department of Education to reject all forms of CRT, action civics, and related funding, and the deep-sixing of those terrible draft Social Studies standards (and the C3 Framework used to create them) that embody everything Governor Noem has just pledged herself to battle.

If she does follow through, Noem can rightly be acclaimed a hero, and a model for governors in every other state in the Union.


Universities Need Better Oversight of Faculty Hiring, Especially at UNC


Nikole Hannah-Jones, the mastermind behind the New York Times’ infamous 1619 Project, has been hired by the Hussman School of Journalism at the University of North Carolina. Her credentials for the position are very weak and the way she has responded to the voluminous criticism of her work on the 1619 Project bespeaks the mindset of a zealot, not of a scholar.

How did this happen? Did the university trustees consider Hannah-Jones and decide that she would indeed be an asset to the institution?

In today’s Martin Center article, Shannon Watkins looks at the process that in this case (and others) has failed to screen out poor choices. The Board of Trustees is supposed to have the final say, but, in this instance, the process was somehow circumvented. It appears that the Board designated its authority in this instance.

Watkins writes, “In other words, trustees can in effect give away their authority to the chancellor or the chancellor’s ‘designees.’ And who might the ‘designees’ of the chancellor be? It is not clear. The Martin Center requested a list of the names the board may delegate authority to in such matters, but the UNC system did not provide a response as of the date of publication.”

Since the point of requiring approval from the board is to avoid faculty hires that are apt to lead to trouble, current UNC policy obviously needs to be tightened up.

This case is reminiscent of one seven years ago at the University of Illinois, where the trustees, at the urging of the chancellor, refused to approve the contract offer to Steven Salaita, whose statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aroused great concern over his fitness for a faculty position.

Watkins concludes, “The Board of Governors should act swiftly to amend all relevant policies so that trustees are required to review every proposed hire. Trustees shouldn’t have the option to delegate their authority on matters of such central importance to the university. Otherwise, the public should expect to see more ‘Hannah-Jones’ hires in the future.”

Politics & Policy

Former Governor and NRI Chairman Pete du Pont Dies at 86


Pete du Pont, the Republican governor who turned around Delaware and would have been a strong contender had he run for the U.S. Senate against Joe Biden in 1984, died yesterday in Wilmington at 86. Du Pont ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1988 in which he was bested by George H.W. Bush, and dropped out after the New Hampshire primary. Du Pont was also chairman of National Review Institute for three years in the 90s and wrote a regular column for the Wall Street Journal.

A graduate of Exeter, Princeton and Harvard Law School, Pierre Samuel du Pont IV was a wealthy scion of Delaware’s leading family. Democrats who had little of substance with which to attack him instead mocked his name and upbringing. After a stint in his family chemical business, du Pont won a seat in Congress in 1970, then won the governorship in 1976. He inherited a state deep in debt but got Delaware back on track by reining in spending and wooing new business with deregulatory reforms. He was reelected in 1980 with 71 percent of the vote and made Delaware a leading haven for banks with more deregulation. A surprisingly admiring obit in the New York Times notes:

The governor’s approval ratings approached 90 percent. By the time he left office in 1985, the state’s economy was humming, with unemployment down to 7 percent from a high of 13 percent; the top tax rate cut in half, and state budgets were balanced every year of his tenure. Even the Democrats praised his performance.

In 1988, du Pont ran for the Republican nomination for president on a libertarian-leaning platform that included school vouchers, ending farm subsidies and a plan that would have allowed Americans to choose private investment accounts in lieu of Social Security.

The Times obit notes that as a young man du Pont once had a blind date with Jane Fonda, not understanding who the girl was until her father, Henry, answered the door.


More Ellen Ripleys, Fewer Alien Queens: A Mother’s Day Appreciation of the Maternal

Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in Aliens. (Twentieth Century Fox/Trailer image via YouTube)

Today is Mother’s Day, a time to honor those maternal figures who do so much, ask so little in return, and too often go unsung. It is a time to show appreciation, gratitude, and love for such people in our lives. It also has me thinking about Catholic teaching . . . and about aliens. Specifically, Aliens, the 1986 sci-fi action thriller starring Sigourney Weaver, directed by James Cameron. What do these things have to do with Mother’s Day? I’m glad you asked.

Let’s start with Catholic teaching. It is increasingly the view of the modern world that older institutions, such as the Catholic Church, and older mores, such as its teachings, merely exist to restrain women, and to justify the perpetuation of ‘patriarchy.’ This is not so. As is explained in, among other places, Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women), women have played an outsized role in the Church from its beginning. Most notably, this is the case with Mary, the Mother of God, and Mary Magdalene, one of Jesus’s early followers, among the many women (and only one man) of his followers to be present at the Crucifixion. Women, Mary Magdalene among them, are also the first to behold Christ’s empty tomb.

John Paul II carefully draws from Scripture and Church wisdom the meaning and significance of women in creation and in society today. The letter is replete with astute observations, but for Mother’s Day only a few will suffice. He notes the primacy of the maternal role in complementary parenthood, arguing that it is the model for how the family is to function:

It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more. The man — even with all his sharing in parenthood — always remains “outside” the process of pregnancy and the baby’s birth; in many ways he has to learn his own “fatherhood” from the mother.

He adds that “the ‘woman,’ as mother and first teacher of the human being (education being the spiritual dimension of parenthood), has a specific precedence over the man.”

And finally, concerning femininity more broadly, John Paul II argues that it possesses a distinct, transcendent quality that our age desperately needs. To argue that men and women are different is not to embrace stereotypes about them; rather, it is essential to acknowledging each in the fullness of their virtues. To the extent our age shies away from such thinking, it degrades both men and women. Sadly, such degradation, which has many sources, has already occurred to a considerable extent and wreaked its predictable yet tragic havoc. We must, Pope John Paul II argues, hope for a suffusion of feminine virtue as part of our road out of the debauched modern moral landscape:

In our own time, the successes of science and technology make it possible to attain material well-being to a degree hitherto unknown. While this favours some, it pushes others to the edges of society. In this way, unilateral progress can also lead to a gradual loss of sensitivity for man, that is, for what is essentially human. In this sense, our time in particular awaits the manifestation of that “genius” which belongs to women, and which can ensure sensitivity for human beings in every circumstance: because they are human! — and because “the greatest of these is love” (cf. 1 Cor 13:13).

Pretty straightforward, I think. Now: What does any of this have to do with Aliens? Well, in that movie, you have a pretty good demonstration of the kind of femininity that John Paul II means. To understand, a brief summary is necessary. Aliens, the sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi horror film Alien, follows Weaver’s Ellen Ripley, awakened from suspended animation on a spaceship after defeating the eponymous creature (also known as a “xenomorph”) of the original, though not before it vanquished the entire rest of her ship’s crew. When awakened, she learns she has actually been in suspended animation for several decades, meaning everything she knew in the past is long gone. She also learns that LV-426, the planet where she and her original crew originally began their encounter with the xenomorph, has become a human colony . . . and that others have lost contact with it. Ripley travels with an armed battalion to figure out what’s gone wrong, and she discovers that a horde of xenomorphs has wiped out the human colony — with the exception of Newt, a young girl who survived by hiding and scavenging about the colony.

Ripley ends up a mother figure for Newt, unsurprisingly. Also unsurprisingly for a sci-fi action movie, this role comes strongest in Ripley’s role as protector. Indeed, the deliberate contrast Aliens sets up between Ripley and Newt, on the one hand, and the Alien Queen and her offspring (she lays the eggs that hatch the facehuggers, which begin the xenomorph life cycle upon attaching themselves to a host body), on the other, is instructive. In one scene, Ripley finds herself in the Alien Queen’s clutches, then threatens its eggs with a flamethrower, which apparently causes the Queen to relent until one appears about to hatch; Ripley then sets all of the eggs aflame. And later, near the film’s end, there is a duel of maternal energies, as the vengeful Alien Queen seeks to kill Newt while Ripley fights back with the aid of one of the powered exoskeletons of which James Cameron is so fond. Ripley’s taunt to the Alien Queen is rightly famous: “Get away from her, you bitch!”

But this line is more than just a defiant and worthy addition to the badass action-movie one-liner canon. It is also a testament to the feminine genius. For the maternal energies on display in the climactic fight are not equivalent. One is superior to the other, and not only because the good guys have to win. Ripley’s maternal energy is fundamentally human and feminine, an example, in extremis, of the parental role of protection. Yes, one could see in the Alien Queen’s vengeful spite a kind of righteous maternal fury: Ripley did destroy all of her eggs, after all. But this would elide the fact that xenomorphs are, at their core, sterile, lifeless creatures, requiring host organisms to reproduce — hosts they must kill to perpetuate themselves. They are made to kill (their blood is literally acid), and bring only destruction. (Later movies reveal that the entire species was a horrific laboratory creation.) In this, they resemble not at all the feminine genius of which John Paul II speaks, but rather the insidious forces of today that attack our most human elements, driving us away from both our fully realized selves and from one another.

Is this too much for me to read into a work of science fiction? It wouldn’t be the first time. Regardless, women can embody their greatness without defending others from hostile extraterrestrials. Millions do it every day, in their ways. So this Mother’s Day, when they will again, tell your mother you love her, pray for a suffusion of truly feminine genius in our world — and hope for more Ellen Ripleys, and fewer Alien Queens.

Politics & Policy

New York City Shootings Up 94 Percent Over Pre-Pandemic Levels

Mayor Bill De Blasio hugs his wife Chirlane McCray after dropping the ball on New Year’s Day in Times Square, New York City, January 1, 2021. (Gary Hershorn/Reuters Pool)

Two women and a four-year-old girl were shot in Times Square in broad daylight yesterday (or as the New York Times delicately put it, a beef between two men opening fire wound up “injuring” the trio). All three were expected to survive their injuries. One of the women who was shot told the New York Post that as she lay on the ground with a bullet in her leg people filmed her on their cell phones instead of helping. “I was screaming, ‘I don’t want to die, please help me!’ — and people were just recording, they weren’t helping,” she said.

At what point does crime in New York City become something that demands getting serious? Not yet, apparently. Disaster Mayor Bill de Blasio, who last year cut a billion dollars from the police budget while letting hundreds of prisoners out of city jails, predictably blamed outsiders: “The flood of illegal guns into our city must stop,” he said, which is a convenient way for him to claim that his crime problem is the fault of other states.

Shootings in 2019 up to this point in 2019 numbered  239; this year we’re at 469. That’s a 94 percent increase. And Times Square is, at least in theory, heavily policed. It must take a tremendous feeling of impunity to open fire in  a location with so much security. Also, shootings there carry outsized importance, not least for the image of the city and the many businesses that depend on tourists, who mostly come from places where 469 people don’t get shot every four months and hence are easily scared away. The area instantly turned into a gigantic crime scene: “By about 6:40 p.m., nearby streets were fully barricaded to traffic and most pedestrians. Shops and restaurants at the center of Times Square, like Starbucks, Gap and Taco Bell, had emptied out,” reports the Times. ” An eerie silence fell over most of the blocks in the immediate area, interrupted only by conversations among the dozens of officers who stood from 42nd Street up to at least 47th Street.”

Instead of getting serious about the problem, De Blasio is spending $30 million on an ad campaign meant to draw tourists. “We need to let people know– we’re open for business. It’s safe,” he said at a press conference last month.

In June, a Democratic primary for New York City mayor will be held, and the winner will almost certainly be elected the next mayor. Some promising noises have been made. Former NYPD captain Eric Adams, who has promised to bring along a sidearm whenever he enters a house of worship, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang are the leading candidates at the moment. Yang has blasted police defunding.

Last year murders were up 44 percent and shootings a dizzying 97 percent. Crime is so bad that Governor Andrew Cuomo, who ultimately controls the subway system, sarcastically said, “‘Come on the subway. It’s safe!’ Oh really. Have you been on the subway? Because I have, and I was scared.’” De Blasio fired back that the subways are fine.


New England Journal of Medicine Pushes Open Borders

An asylum seeker holds a child while they are detained by U.S. Border Patrol near Yuma, Ariz., April 19, 2021. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

I always say that if you want to see what will go terribly wrong in the country, read the professional journals. Radicalism. Woke perspectives. Transgender ideology. Critical Race Theory in health care. Socialized medicine. “Nature rights” advocacy. It’s all there in the world’s foremost professional publications, along with advocacy for policies reflecting those views.

That matters because the people who write for and publish these journals are part of the ruling elite who exert tremendous influence on legislation, executive decision making at federal and state levels, court rulings, business practices, etc..

The radicalization of the intellegentsia is a major factor in the hard-left shift we see in political advocacy and policy. In the latest example, the New England Journal of Medicine offers an article advocating for open borders for illegal alien children and their families. Literally. From, “When Undoing is Not Enough,” (the “undoing” refers to Trump border polices–which the authors claim was legal “torture,” and the goal is to reduce “trauma.”):

First, under the Biden administration’s leadership, the United States could minimize the amount of time that migrants spend in Mexico and in detention. We believe that unaccompanied children, pregnant women, and families should never have to wait to cross the border.

That would sure slow the flow, wouldn’t it? But not just “children:”

Second, the Biden administration could carefully consider the unintended consequences of allowing children, but not entire families, to enter the United States. This policy forces parents to choose between prolonging their children’s exposure to life-threatening trauma in Mexico and sending them into the United States unaccompanied.

And to sweeten the pot, free health care for all!

Third, it could provide access to high-quality and timely health, mental health, and dental care — on par with the care provided to U.S. citizens — for all immigrant children and families.

And, after opening the door, inviting them in, paying for their medical care, let them have every benefit of citizenship short of voting:

Finally, we believe that asylum seekers (people who seek protection at the border or when already in the United States) and refugees (people who are granted protection from outside the United States before arrival) should be treated equally when it comes to social benefits, work authorization, and economic-development opportunities.

These polices would create a stampede from around the world to get here and walk on in –exponentially higher than the current crisis. And the cost! It would cause our own systems to crumble.

It is also worth mentioning that the authors never get around to discussing the tremendous danger that would be faced by children and families from around the world in their desperate attempts to make it into the U.S.A. Human trafficking would become a growth industry, with associated predation and exploitation of the weak. Somehow, the authors never get around to worrying about that.

The best explanation for such advocacy is that elites no longer believe in national sovereignty. “We are the world,” and all that. What better way to accomplish the deconstruction of a nation and promote equity — which means equal outcomes for all, i.e., a rush to the lowest common denominator — than by erasing our borders?


Confronting an Outlaw State with Superpower Status

Chinese president Xi Jinping in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, March 10, 2021 (Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters )

A follow-on thought or two to Friday’s Morning Jolt…

The Chinese space program is launching rockets and not caring whether the falling debris lands on populated areas.

The regime in Beijing spent the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic contradicting doctors on the ground in Wuhan and insisting the virus could not spread from one person to another. Then Chinese companies shipped faulty personal protective equipment all around the world. Their vaccine that they shipped abroad barely works, charging some countries $36 per dose. China’s regime said they would allow investigators unfettered access to investigate the origin of the virus, and then broke that promise. And they made the nonsensical accusation that COVID-19 originated at the U.S. biological defense program at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

And that’s just China’s actions relating to the pandemic!

That’s not getting into the genocide of the Uyghurs, the near-obliteration of democratic reformers in Hong Kong, military aggression towards Taiwan, the hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, helping other countries evade U.S. sanctions, large-scale theft of intellectual property, police harassment of U.S. students studying abroad, censorship of foreign journalists, co-opting of U.S. universities, corporations, and think-tanks… oh, and did we mention the large-scale harvesting of human organs from political prisoners?

They are an outlaw authoritarian state with superpower or near-superpower status. They represent a colossally failed gamble, going back at least three decades and arguably half a century, that greater American and Western interaction with China would soften the regime. President Bill Clinton declared in 2000, “the more China liberalizes its economy, the more it will liberate the potential of its people to work without restraint, to live without fear.” We now know that belief represented an epic misjudgment.

Very few Americans like the thought that we’re entering an era of growing and worsening conflict with China. They’re a nuclear power with 1.4 billion people, one of our biggest trading partners if not the biggest trading partner, the second-largest economy in the world, the largest army in the world, and soon the largest navy in the Pacific Ocean. Wargame simulations of a U.S.-China battle over Taiwan end in either a Chinese victory or a pyrrhic victory for the Americans. A lot of American institutions have become used to the benefits of Chinese “investment,” and a lot of American corporations have become near-dependent upon access to the Chinese market. Heck, even the Biden administration’s ambitious plans for electric vehicles, wind turbines and other green-energy infrastructure will require a lot more rare earth metals, and the biggest producer of those is… China.

Even if a nascent Cold War with Beijing never turns hot, it’s still going to be a long and arduous effort.

But if we make like an ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, it’s only going to get worse. None of our past conflicts with powerful ideological, military, or geopolitical rivals is quite parallel to this one. It took a while, but Communism’s internal contradictions eventually caught up with the Soviet Union. China’s “Xi Jinping Thought” – just enough capitalism to keep the system going, along with an extremely powerful state, massive propaganda and surveillance systems and the social credit system – represents a whole new kind of threat to Western democracy, values, and nations. The Beijing regime believes its system consistently offers stability, prosperity, and order, with an acceptable sacrifice of liberty, while Western systems, which seem to offer freedom, keep delivering chaos, paralysis from internal divisions, moral depravity, and decadence.

The challenge before us is pretty colossal. But you know what could really derail China’s global ambitions and completely wipe out the regime’s “soft power” of influence for a generation?

Being held accountable before the world for its role the origin of a pandemic that has killed millions of people!

Politics & Policy

Why the Federal Borrowing and Spending Binge Matters

(Michael Burrell/Getty Images)

Leftist economists and pundits tell us that the current federal binge is nothing to worry about. It’s necessary to “build back” the economy and those right-wingers who talk about inflation are just glomy “market fundamentalists” who can be ignored.

Wrong, argues Veronique de Rugy in this Law & Liberty essay from a recent symposium. There must be costs. The dollar’s value will decline and economic growth will be stifled as the federal government absorbs resources that would otherwise have gone into productive investments. (The so-called “investments” in education and infrastructure are just transfers to interest groups.)

Here is her key paragraph:

Milton Friedman was correct: The true measure of government’s size is found in what it spends and not in what it takes in in taxes. Because borrowing allows politicians and citizen-taxpayers to push the bill for today’s spending onto future generations, borrowing encourages too much spending today—thus irresponsibly enlarging the size of government.

Right. The real problem is the enlargement of the federal leviathan. The bigger the government, the more potentially productive resources are squandered on things that politicians like (more IRS agents, more diversity bureaucrats) and the less is left for growth. People will see their government checks but will never see the increased output and innovation that was crowded out.

Read the whole thing.

Politics & Policy

AOC, Planned-Parenthood Baby

Sign outside Planned Parenthood on Bleecker Street in lower Manhattan.

I couldn’t do it this morning — go stand outside Planned Parenthood, that is. There is no pro-life coverage currently on Fridays at the Manhattan Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood has what amounts to a bouncer outside, ushering girls in. It’s hard enough to communicate some hope to a young woman who is scared of her pregnancy and what it’s going to mean for her life when you’re standing on a street corner and she’s headed for an appointment. Even more so when there’s a hostile element, assuming you mean ill. In truth, as people walk by yelling at you that abortion is a woman’s choice, an actual choice is what you are trying to provide scared 17-year-old black girls, in some of the situations I’ve encountered.

Wednesday, my heart sunk again as I saw the medical-waste boxes be taken away. I couldn’t face new ones again today. I know why we look away from abortion, it’s too ugly to see.

I get lots of emails chastising me for supposedly thinking women are stupid when I say something like that. No, I don’t think women are stupid. I know girls are being inundated with all kinds of pressure to act like men have the luxury to have sex without consequences. But there are consequences. And they are lied to when they are put on birth control by doctors who assume they are going to have sex anyway. Girls are treated as if they are animals by the medical establishment and the education system and the culture. They have no idea of their beauty and resilience. They have no idea God will give them the grace to be the mothers they are.

And yet, the infamous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that Planned Parenthood is a place for pre-natal care. A few weeks ago, I saw a mayoral candidate talk about maternity care outside Planned Parenthood’s Bleecker Street location in Manhattan. Yes, some do provide some of that. But not by much. And they kill babies. Not maliciously. They are blinded to — or choose to be in denial about — the truth. With the best of intentions, for the most part, I have no doubt. But that is what happens at Planned Parenthood. Just so we’re clear. That seems like something a humane society should care about — and at least be uncomfortable if not outraged immediately about, after almost a half century of the law lying to people about what’s worthy of protection. Perhaps we should all take turns praying outside abortion clinics so we don’t fall into ignorance about what we’re really talking about. Hurt girls being hurt all the more by “women’s health care.”


Dana, Christa, Et Al.

Dana Perino (left), in her role as presidential press secretary, speaks at the White House in 2007; the late, great mezzo-soprano Christa Ludwig (right) sits for an interview in 2018. (Larry Downing / Reuters; Tonkunstler Orchestra via YouTube)

I would like to offer a couple of podcasts to you — a Q&A and a Music for a While. The Q&A, here, is with Dana Perino, star of Fox News and onetime press secretary to George W. Bush. (She was the second female presidential press secretary, as she reminded me in our podcast. The first was Dee Dee Meyers, in the Clinton White House.)

Dana has written three books, full of warmth, experience, and smarts. Books tend to reflect their authors. The latest is Everything Will Be Okay: Life Lessons for Young Women (from a Former Young Woman). The book also has a great deal to say to men — and to people of all ages. Dana is a very good “life coach.”

In our Q&A, we talk about social media, “body issues,” and other big subjects. One of those others is time management — big indeed. Toward the end, we talk about three of the men in Dana’s life: George W. Bush; Jasper, her dog; and Peter, her husband. (I have not listed them in order of importance.) You will enjoy Dana Perino a lot. Again, here.

For Music for a While, go here. This episode has a range of performers and composers. There’s a teenage pianist, Maxim Lando, playing Sibelius. (Also his own arrangement of “Stairway to Heaven.” Seriously.) There’s a Kentucky violinist playing a John Corigliano piece, Stomp (which involves some actually stomping, not just fiddling). At the end, there’s a little tribute to Christa Ludwig, the late mezzo-soprano. I interviewed her in 2014, when she was in her mid 80s. As I think I mentioned the other day, she is one of the very few people I have ever been starstruck by. Utterly starstruck. I could not believe I was sitting across from her.

Anyway, that Music for a While, again, is here. I have Christa singing Brahms. Have a great weekend, y’all.


The Sexual Revolution Wasn’t about Freedom


I’ll be talking with Fr. Gerry Murray tonight in Manhattan and unpacking a little bit about a powerful quote.

From Bernanos: An Ecclesial Existence by Hans Urs von Balthasar:

Impurity and unchasteness are not merely an external obstacle to pure knowledge untroubled by the senses: they are, in fact, the internal destruction of the light that shines only in God. Unchasteness is secretly the same thing as unbelief, for faith is the evidence and knowledge of things in God, not in man himself, while unchasteness is one and the same as the curiosity to know oneself and all things only in oneself. Unchasteness is also one with madness, because reason remains intact only when it transcends itself in the direction of God. Why don’t we realize more often that the mask of pleasure, stripped of all hypocrisy, is precisely the mask of anguish?

We are so cruel to young people when we don’t invite them to live differently than Planned Parenthood profits from.

Politics & Policy

Twitter Covers for Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter

(pressureUA/Getty Images)

Whatever one thinks of the conservative complaints about Big Tech’s bias, it is hard to deny certain concrete examples of it — particularly of the most blatant variety. Case in point, the “helpful” explainer Twitter provided when a tweet by Donald Trump Jr. comparing Joe Biden to Jimmy Carter began trending:

You don’t have to be Donald Trump Jr. to be aware that the historical record of Jimmy Carter’s presidency included a period of overlapping high inflation and high unemployment (“stagflation”), something many at the time thought was impossible. As today’s jobs report revealed persisting unemployment, and some indicators suggesting imminent inflation (following a massive federal spending spree), this comparison may ultimately prove apt.

So the only thing people should be “confused” about is why Twitter felt it necessary to play defense for Biden (and Carter, by extension) by creating an impossible-to-prove consensus of confusion over this comparison, one it then employed unrelated — and highly dubious — claims about Carter’s post-presidential activities to purportedly resolve — in the favor of the two Democratic presidents. (Forget for a moment the backhanded compliment implied by having to go to a president’s post-presidential activities to find something good to say about him.) When conservatives complain about bias in Big Tech, this is the kind of thing they mean. And here, it is impossible to dispute. So please share this Corner post widely; perhaps, if it becomes popular enough, Twitter will be forced to explain it as well. 

Politics & Policy

Will New York Democrats Try to Redistrict Elise Stefanik Out of a Seat?

U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) listens during a House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 21, 2019. (Andrew Harrer/Reuters)

With news that Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik is very likely to replace Liz Cheney as GOP conference chair next week, will New York Democrats be tempted to use redistricting as a tool to try to end Stefanik’s congressional career?

On one hand, taking out a member of Republican leadership could be awfully tempting to Democrats. On the other hand, New York could benefit from having bipartisan representation in congressional leadership, and Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report makes the case that Democrats would maximize their advantage in New York by packing as many Republicans as they can into one Upstate New York congressional district:

Stefanik was first elected in 2014 and dubbed “a new Republican star” by Donald Trump during his first impeachment in 2019. If redistricting forced Stefanik to compete in a primary with freshman Republican Claudia Tenney, Stefanik would be a shoo-in.

Economy & Business

The Pandemic Has Left Us at Least 10 Million Jobs Short


Jason Furman and Wilson Powell III (for the Petersen Institute) and Michael Strain (for Bloomberg Opinion) have written informative analyses of the new unemployment report. There are some differences of emphases, but also a rough convergence.

Here’s Strain: “Friday’s numbers add to the case that the demand side of the labor market is in much better shape than the supply side. The excessively generous unemployment benefits that are in place until September will keep workers on the sidelines, restricting employment gains and keeping wages artificially high. The longer schools and day-care centers are closed, the harder it will be for women with children to go back to work.” Furman and Powell make the same points, while also noting that some people may be staying away from work because of continuing concerns about the virus.

Strain also calculates that we are 10.8 million jobs below where the pre-pandemic trend would have taken us. Furman and Powell say we’re 10 million short.


Blinken at China-Led Meeting: Trump Admin ‘Undermined’ Rules-Based Order

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks during the release of the “2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” at the State Department in Washington, D.C., March 30, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/Pool via Reuters)

China is making the most of its month-long U.N. Security Council presidency, using the mostly ceremonial role to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s version of multilateralism. During a high-level meeting this morning chaired by Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, these efforts got a slight boost from the Biden administration.

This was no gathering that a U.S. secretary of state should have legitimized with his presence — and yet, Antony Blinken joined the livestream to represent Washington. Where Blinken could have sent a lower ranking official to poke holes in Beijing’s efforts to reshape international order and justify the Party’s abuses at home, he did this himself, though far more subtly than was warranted, and he said that the Trump administration had “undermined” the rules-based order.

First, though, he failed to clearly distinguish between Beijing’s preferred version of multilateralism — which traffics in Party-approved slogans but still sounds familiar to an American ear, with its emphasis on multilateralism and collective action to confront threats to climate change. The difference, of course, is stark: Chinese officials are only really offering up empty rhetoric to advance the party-state’s worldview, to justify human-rights abuses and excuse blunt exercises of political power.

The Party’s pronouncements, of course, amount to rank hypocrisy. “Splitting the world along ideological conflict line conflicts with a spirit of multilateralism, and is a regression of history,” Wang said, subtly rebuking Washington for working with its allies in non-U.N. arrangements, such as the Quad grouping, even though China pursues its own such pacts.

America’s top diplomat could have taken the occasion to point that out: When Chinese officials speak about multilateralism, they do so with false promises of peace and cooperation, when their intent is just to divert attention from severe human-rights abuses at home and coercive diplomacy abroad.

Blinken instead pledged to engage multilateral organizations on fighting the COVID pandemic and climate change: “We’ll also work with any country on these issues — including those with whom we have serious differences. The stakes are too high to let differences stand in the way of our cooperation.”

More promisingly, he went on to urge countries to meet their international commitment, and defend the rule-based order and human dignity, and speak out against countries’ political coercion.

Blinken’s defense of the equality of the U.N.’s members sounded like a rebuke of the gathering’s Chinese host, as well as of the Russian government (Blinken had just returned from a trip to Ukraine, where he emphasized U.S. support amidst the growing Russian military threat). “A state does not respect that principle when it purports to redraw the borders of another; or seeks to resolve territorial disputes by using or threatening force; or when a state claims it’s entitled to a sphere of influence to dictate or coerce the choices and decisions of another country,” he said.

He also took aim at another event that China is hosting during it Security Council presidency on the role of “emerging technology” in peace and security. Though this is likely Beijing’s attempt to make its case for its invasive use of surveillance and to justify other political priorities, Blinken appeared to flip the theme on its head, gently chastising the Party for its use of technology: “We must ensure that this new order is equipped to address new problems — like national security and human rights concerns raised by new technologies, from cyber attacks to surveillance to discriminatory algorithms.” This seems to be an effective way to turn Beijing’s diplomatic games into an opportunity to highlight its most egregious actions.

But these oblique references to unspecified instances of bad behavior were the extent of Blinken’s comments on China’s behavior on the international stage. If possible, he was more directly critical of the president’s domestic-political opponents, when describing why every country must be accountable for its violations of international law. “That includes the United States.”

“I know that some of our actions in recent years have undermined the rules-based order and led others to question whether we are still committed to it. Rather than take our word for it, we ask the world to judge our commitment by our actions,” Blinken said, seemingly referring to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from certain international bodies. He went on to list what he called the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to “re-engage vigorously” with a number of U.N. bodies and multilateral treaties.

“We’re also taking steps, with great humility, to address the inequities and injustices in our own democracy,”  he continued. “We do so openly and transparently for people around the world to see, even when it’s ugly, even when it’s painful. And we will emerge stronger and better for doing so.”

During his opening remarks, Wang did not offer a similarly conciliatory statement about his country’s failing; in fact, quite the opposite, he explained why China is triumphant at this point in time, the 100th anniversary of the Party’s founding and the 50th anniversary of the People’s Republic’s replacement of Taiwan at the U.N. “China will remain a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of international order, and a provider of public goods,” said Wang.

There’s a place for a public reckoning with America’s historical injustices, and a place to reassure American allies about U.S. commitments to international engagement. That place is not, however, an international meeting hosted by a brutal authoritarian regime.


Biden: On Second Thought, Yes, China Is Indeed Eating Our Lunch

Then-vice president Joe Biden shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping inside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, December 4, 2013. (Lintao Zhang/Reuters Pool)

Joe Biden’s assessment of China, May 1, 2019:

China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean in the west. They can’t figure out how they are going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know,they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they’re not competition for us.”

Joe Biden’s assessment of China, May 6, 2021:

The Chinese are eating our lunch.  They’re eating our lunch, economically.  They’re investing hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development.

That’s why, right now, if it keeps their way, they’re going to own the electric car market in the world.  They’re going to own a whole range — we got to compete.

Come on man, indeed.

Law & the Courts

New Pew Poll Shows Slight Gain in Pro-Life Sentiment

Abortion supporters and pro-life advocates demonstrate on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Washington, D.C., January 24, 2011. (Jim Young/Reuters)

On Thursday, the Pew Research Center released the first nationwide poll on sanctity-of-life issues since Joe Biden’s inauguration. Like the Knights of Columbus/Marist poll that was released this past January and the CBS News and Gallup polls which each came out in 2020, it shows that public attitudes on the issue of abortion have remained relatively stable during the pandemic. Overall, the poll shows that 39 percent of Americans think that abortion should be illegal in “all or most cases.” This is a one percentage point gain from a survey that Pew conducted during January and February 2020.

The main takeaway from pro-lifers from this poll is that those who identify with the Democratic Party are becoming increasingly more supportive of legal abortion. The Pew survey finds that 80 percent of those who either identify as Democrats or lean Democrat think abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.” As recently as 2014, only 67 percent of Democrats held this view. As such, political polarization on sanctity-of-life issues continues. Self-identified Democrats and those who lean Democrat are 45 percentage points more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say abortion should be legal “in all or most cases.” Seven years ago, this gap in abortion attitudes was only 30 points.

This shift explains why many Democratic elected officials have become more aggressive in their support for legal abortion in a relatively short period of time. An older generation of Democrats who were largely moderate on social issues is passing away and being replaced with a younger generation that is considerably more liberal and secular. This explains why the Hyde amendment, which used to pass with bipartisan support, is now strongly opposed by many Democratic congressmen and senators. Indeed, every major candidate who sought the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination publicly opposed the Hyde amendment.

This shift also explains why in many blue states, there are efforts make abortion policy more permissive. During the past few years, both Illinois and Maine have required that their state Medicaid programs cover elective abortions. Earlier this year, the ROE Act in Massachusetts weakened pro-life parental-involvement law in that state. This year, pro-lifers in Illinois have done admirable work defending their state’s pro-life parental-involvement law. Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act remains stalled in the New Jersey state legislature. However, pro-lifers in blue states need to continue to mobilize Republicans and independents to protect the existing pro-life laws in their states.

Former Xinjiang Detainee Warns of China’s ‘Threat to the World’

A Chinese Uyghur Muslim participates in an anti-China protest during the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan June 28, 2019. (Jorge Silva/Reuters)

The people who have personally faced the Chinese Communist Party’s abuses say that the regime’s actions within its borders are an international threat. That’s the message that you’ll hear from leaders in the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, and it’s the same as the one that you’ll hear from Uyghurs.

Tursunay Ziawudun, the woman who underwent a horrific ordeal in the Xinjiang concentration camp system then bravely shared her story with the world, appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. Her testimony about the Party’s conduct should be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that what’s taking place in the


Yes, Grade Inflation Is the Explanation

(Nicola Patterson/Getty Images)

Writing at Forbes, my good friend Rich Vedder gives me a hat tip for bringing a new paper to his attention, then he proceeds to discuss its findings. The paper is about the appearance that American college students are learning more because graduation rates have been rising. But are they really learning more?

The authors conclude that the appearance is misleading. American students are more likely to finish college because college is much easier than it used to be. High grades are easy to get, and it’s easy for students to avoid tough courses where they’ll earn a low grade if they don’t learn difficult material. On the whole, they spend considerably less time studying than in the past but receive much higher grades.

Professors who insist on grading strictly rather than rewarding students just for showing up on occasion find themselves in hot water with administrators, who care mainly about keeping students happy, enrolled, and most important of all, paying. Colleges pay lip service to “academic excellence,” but few really mean it.

Therefore, we get more and more students graduating even though many have learned little of value since their first day on campus. The glut of people holding college credentials has led to employers deciding that those without them aren’t worth considering, which in turn lures still more into college in a quest not for learning, but for a piece of paper.

Higher education’s cheerleaders say that the U.S. is so wealthy because we “invest” so much in college education. The truth is the other way around. Only a very wealthy country could afford to have an education system that costs so much and delivers so little.

Politics & Policy

Ohio GOP Censures and Calls for the Resignation of Representative Anthony Gonzalez


The governing board of the Ohio Republican Party censured and called for the resignation of Representative Anthony Gonzalez on Friday morning. The rebuke of Gonzalez, one of the ten GOP congressmen to vote to impeach Donald Trump after the January 6 Capitol riot, comes as efforts to oust House GOP conference chair Liz Cheney from her position heated up again this week. Of Cheney, Gonzalez has said:

If a prerequisite for leading our conference is continuing to lie to our voters, then Liz is not the best fit. Liz isn’t going to lie to people. Liz is going to say what she believes. She’s going to stand on principle. And if that’s going to be distracting for folks, she’s not the best fit. I wish that weren’t the case.

Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio has called for Gonzalez’s “eradication” from the party and said in a statement: “From day one, I have strongly supported efforts to censure and expel traitor Congressmen like Anthony Gonzalez who voted to impeach President Trump.”

I think that those arguing that the attempt to remove Cheney from leadership is chiefly about Cheney’s emphasis rather than her position on Trump and the events of January 6 will need to reckon with the Ohio GOP’s meritless attacks on Gonzalez. Moreover, they’ll have to explain why Cheney is wrong about her intuition about the party’s need to be honest about and move on from the former president given the way Mandel is running for office as a shameless personality-cult adherent.

Economy & Business

Sasse Blames Jobs Miss on Congress ‘Paying More for Unemployment Than for Work’

Sen. Ben Sasse on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., September 27, 2018 (Andrew Harnik/Reuters)

Last month, the United States economy added 266,000 jobs—falling far short of economists’ expectation of one million jobs. Axios reports this is “the biggest miss, relative to expectations, in decades.”

What explains the shortfall? Nebraska senator Ben Sasse is laying the blame on the decision by Congress and President Biden to continue to enhance unemployment benefits by $300 per week.

“We should be clear about the policy failure at work here: There are 7,400,000 jobs open in the US – but fewer than 300,000 people found new work last month,” Sasse says in a statement. “Why? This tragedy is what happens when Washington know-it-alls decide to pretend they’re generous by paying more for unemployment than for work. This obviously hurts our economy, but more precisely this hurts people on every Main Street in the nation.”

Sasse was one of a handful of Republican senators who sounded the alarm when the first COVID relief bill passed in March 2020 that making jobless benefits worth more than a job would have a negative impact on employment.

The first COVID relief bill, passed at the start of the pandemic, enhanced unemployment benefits by $600 per week. The COVID relief bill passed on a party-line vote by congressional Democrats in March 2021 included a $300-per-week bonus for unemployment benefits. The bonus is set to expire September 6.

American Travelers Must Beware of England’s COVID Stasi

Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during a daily news conference at 10 Downing Street in London, England, to update on the coronavirus outbreak. (Pippa Fowles/10 Downing Street/Handout via Reuters)

The complete and total dearth of any appetite for civil liberty here in the United Kingdom (whence I write) is a sorry sight to behold. The government’s unilateral abridgment of the freedom of association, which was understandable at the outset of the pandemic over a year ago, has still yet to relent in spite of the fact that over half of the British population has now been fully vaccinated. Included in this half of the citizenry are, naturally enough, those most vulnerable to serious illness and/or death at the hands of the virus. There is really no reason for there

Politics & Policy

Politico Swings and Misses at DeSantis in Today’s Playbook

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at CPAC in Orlando, Fla., February 26, 2021. (Joe Skipper/Reuters)

Today’s Politico Playbook breathlessly reports in the subject line: “Scarred DeSantis staffers form a support group.”

Here we go again.

Promising “a look at the leader of the People’s Republic of Florida as a boss” — one might think the comparison to North Korea and China would be a little heavy-handed for Politico’s editors, but one would evidently be wrong — the guardians of our democracy paint an unflattering portrait of Governor Ron DeSantis:

RON DESANTIS is looking ahead to reelection next year and quite possibly a 2024 bid for president — but he’s left behind a trail of former disgruntled staffers and has no long-standing political machine to mount a national campaign, DeSantis vets say.

We talked to a dozen or so onetime aides and consultants to the Florida governor, and they all said the same thing: DeSantis treats staff like expendable widgets. He largely relies on a brain trust of two: himself and his wife, CASEY DESANTIS, a former local TV journalist. Beyond that there are few, if any, “DeSantis people,” as far as political pros are concerned.

Yes, DeSantis recently hired highly regarded operative PHIL COX. But there’s no savant that he’s been through the trenches with, like a KARL ROVE or DAVID AXELROD — let alone an army of loyalists. That’s probably not fatal to his White House prospects, but it can’t help.

DeSantis, who’s yet to complete his first term as governor, does not yet have a strategist with the fame or track record of a Karl Rove or David Axelrod on his team. The horror! It’s easy to see why Playbook chose to make this, and not the disappointing job numbers released this morning or their relationship with Biden administration policy, the focus of today’s newsletter. Playbook goes on to detail a litany of grievances, including that “aides would lure DeSantis to staff meetings with cupcakes.”

Politico relied exclusively on anonymous sources described as “onetime” staffers in its reporting. GOP operative Patrick Hynes suggests that this appears to have been not-so-friendly fire from a fellow Republican, and there are a few breadcrumbs in the story suggesting that it may be attributable to a certain prominent Republican who calls Florida home, although that’s admittedly speculative.

In any case, it’s doubtful that Republican voters will be especially disturbed by a politician showing some ambivalence and even disdain for the political-consultant class. This is yet another swing-and-a-miss at the Florida governor and 2024 frontrunner.


The NHL’s Fighting Problem 


I don’t agree with everything in this Slate piece on how the NHL handled Tom Wilson of my beloved Caps sucker-punching a Rangers player, but it’s broadly correct — hockey is an incredibly compelling game without fights (witness the Olympics, or high-stakes NHL games when neither team wants to risk unnecessary penalties), and the NHL could easily stamp them out if it wanted to.


Catholic Laity Take Up Global Prayer Campaign for the ‘Church and Peoples of China’


Today, prominent Christian lay persons from around the world are launching a campaign for the explicit purpose of fostering international communal prayer focusing on China between May 23–30. This initiative was sparked after a call for prayer for the “Church and Peoples of China” was issued by Burma’s Cardinal Charles Bo, as president of the Federation of Catholic Asian Bishops Conferences.

The Cardinal is the highest-ranking Catholic Church official to dedicate a specific period of prayer for China’s Church since Pope Benedict XVI did so in 2007, though Pope Francis spoke generally of the duty to pray for China’s Christians, in 2018. The prayer campaign is at this stage being carried forward by the laity.

American Congressman Chris Smith, the U.K.’s Lord David Alton, Canadian parliamentarian Garnett Genuis, Australian parliamentarian Kevin Andrews, Irish entrepreneur Declan Ganley, Canada’s former religious-freedom envoy Andrew Bennett, CSW’s expert Ben Rogers, Ave Maria law professor Jane Adolphe, as well as myself, are part of the informal coalition supporting the campaign. What resonates with us is Cardinal Bo’s explanation that prayer is needed as China rises in power that it may “become a force for good and a protector of the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalized in the world.” He writes that his underlying concern is the “inviolable dignity of the human person.”

China’s human-rights situation is indeed desperately in need of prayer. Defense lawyers, citizen journalists, and dissidents are arrested, jailed, or disappeared. Religious believers constitute the largest group of those most aggrieved.

In recent months, mass atrocities against the Uyghur Muslims have been recognized as ethno-religious genocide by the United States. Over a million Uighurs have been detained in concentration camps and/or subjected to torture, sexual violence, forced sterilizations and abortions, slave labor, and other atrocities. Decades-long repression against Tibet’s large Buddhist population is intensifying. Credible reports continue to surface of forced organ harvesting, particularly victimizing members of the Falun Gong spiritual group. These are some of the “peoples” referred to in the Cardinal’s call for prayer.

Across China, both government-registered or “Patriotic” churches and underground churches are severely repressed and may be existentially threatened. Since 2018, the Chinese Communist Party regime has ratcheted up measures to stop the spread of the faith and distort Christian teachings. Undoubtedly to protect its Western trade, China reins in the Church mostly through onerous regulations and not the graphic coercion seen against the other religious minorities. It is employing four major strategies to do this.

First, it systematically bans youth from going to church, attending Bible studies, and being exposed to religion in any way. This will be devastating for the future of China’s Church. Its vaunted growth over the last 50 years, now estimated at 60–100 million Christians, will predictably reverse as a result.

Second, it is energetically dismantling the vast Christian underground, which accounts for most Protestants and half of the Catholics. Operating openly for decades though unregistered, these churches are now being crushed. Among the thousands shut down are five Catholic parishes in Fujian, and the internationally renowned Protestant Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, and the Guangzhou church founded in the 1970s by the late Pastor Samuel Lamb.

Their leadership is being arrested and put on trial or, more frequently, simply made to disappear into secret detention centers. Some are subject to brainwashing sessions and torture or forced to quit their ministries.

Under the new rules, the state’s social-credit-score system applies to all Christian leaders. Former Mindong Bishop Guo lost running water, heat, and electricity as punishment for refusing to register. Zion Church Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri, who shut his Beijing church rather than allow state surveillance in it, has been barred from flights out of China for three years. So has his daughter, who planned to attend an American law school.

Third, on May 1, new rules were applied to ensure Christian “Sinicization,” President Xi Jinping’s term for aligning the Patriotic churches with CCP. The CCP has total oversight over their religious leadership, doctrine, appearance, and sermons — as starkly symbolized inside some churches with Xi and Mao’s images replacing those of Jesus and Mary.

As I previously reported in these pages, the new rules on selecting China’s bishops make no mention of any papal role in the process, despite the 2018 Sino-Vatican agreement. Over these past two years, Beijing has permitted only three new episcopal appointments for some 40 vacant diocesan seats, accounting for 30 percent of the Patriotic dioceses.

Finally, the CCP is restricting Bibles. The Bible is now difficult to buy in book stores and has been recently dropped from the App store and censored from the Chinese Internet. Ironically, while the Holy Book becomes scarce in China, China’s Amity Printing Press continues to be relied on by American Bible publishers for the vast majority of the millions of Bibles sold annually at home.

China is at war with all religions. The global Church’s silence about this is coming to an end. The campaign now underway will facilitate a prayer effort for all those persecuted, by those with the freedom to gather in prayer.

To find out more, see www.GlobalPrayerforChina.org.


How the Diversity Mania Threatens Freedom of Speech


I’m old enough to remember when leftists held freedom of speech sacred. That’s before their long march through our institutions put them in power. Now they insist on controlled speech.

On Thursday, May 13, starting at 2:30 PM, the James G. Martin Center is hosting an online event to discuss the ways “diversity” efforts imperil freedom of speech. The three panelists will be Jeanette Doran, president of North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights.

Anyone who is interested can go to this link to register.



Doom: Niall Ferguson on the Politics and Policies of the Pandemic


Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe, his new book on the decisions made by governments and public-health officials around the world during the COVID pandemic. In this wide-ranging discussion, Ferguson describes what governments and leaders got right and got wrong — very wrong — over the 15 months since the coronavirus spread from China. Were the lockdowns instituted around the world prudent and life-saving, or did they cause more damage by crippling economies and creating massive unemployment and enormous government debt across the globe? How can vaccines be created and distributed faster and more efficiently than this one? Finally, what lessons can we learn from this pandemic that can be applied to or even prevent the next one? Yes, Niall is certain there will be another one.

Recorded on April 28, 2021

Politics & Policy

How Long Do Impassioned Fanbases Stick Around?

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (R) thanks the crowd after receiving Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s endorsement at a rally at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, January 19, 2016. (Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters )

In yesterday’s Morning Jolt, I wrote, “While it is inconceivable that Trump would lose a fight over control of the party now, it is conceivable that the air may slowly leak out of the Trump balloon, month by month, year by year.”

I think Peter Hamby’s comparison of post-presidency Trump to Sarah Palin is a useful one to keep in mind. In 2009, it looked like a safe bet that Sarah Palin was going to be one of the biggest movers and shakers in Republican politics — if not the biggest — for the rest of the decade. But she chose not to run in 2012 and gradually faded from the GOP consciousness. By 2015, Fox News chose not to renew her contract, and I had completely forgotten she tried to launch her own subscriber-based online video channel in Obama’s second term. And by January 2016, she was something of an afterthought, endorsing the man who had stepped into her old role, Trump. Few of her fans stopped liking her, but they found other political figures who excited them more. As the 2016 election cycle approached, Palin seemed . . . stale. Her stream-of-consciousness speeches were more and more about herself, and less and less about the issues and problems on the mind of her audience.

A passionate and loyal political fanbase is tough to keep for more than a decade, particularly in today’s media environment. People get bored and move on to fresher faces. Tucker Carlson is the biggest controversy and outrage-generating figure on Fox News Channel’s prime time these days, Josh Hawley is the guy leading the charge against Big Tech on Capitol Hill, and Ron DeSantis is now signing bills live on Fox News. MediaMatters – usually a reliable barometer of who on the Right is irking the Left the most – is spending time denouncing Tucker Carlson for his vaccine skepticism and Rick Santorum for not sufficiently respecting Native-American culture, and TikTok influencers for “pushing dangerous far-right conspiracy theories to their young audience.” The political world moves on to other figures and other issues.

Donald Trump spent five and a half years at the center of American life. By the time Republicans are thinking seriously about their choice for presidential nominee in mid-2023, Trump will be 77 years old, and his last election victory will have been six and a half years ago.

Trump is still the safer bet than the rest of the field. But just as his rise was just about impossible to envision in May 2013, the rise of the next big figure in Republican politics may be just about impossible to envision right now.

Cori Bush’s ‘Black Birthing People’ Testimony Was Powerfully Pro-Life

Rep. Cori Bush (D.,-Mo.) testifies during a hearing for the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 6, 2021. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

“Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don’t believe our pain,” Democratic Missouri representative Cori Bush tweeted in summary of her testimony yesterday. “My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic.”

Bush received plenty of well-earned derision for using the phrase “Black birthing people,” which is not only preposterously unscientific but sounds like something a misogynistic, white Identitarian might call black women.

The Moloch cultists at NARAL came to Bush’s defense:

When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just

Law & the Courts

A Christian College Stands Up to Biden

Campus of College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Mo. (College of the Ozarks/via Facebook)

The Bidenistas came into power full of ideological swagger, eager to expand federal power in all directions. Among their moves was a directive by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (two areas of life where the federal government has no constitutional business) that under the Fair Housing Act, the illegality of discrimination against buyers or renters based on “sex” now includes “sexual orientation.” That means trouble with a capital T from Washington if you’re an institution that wants to maintain traditional distinctions in housing between biological males and biological females.

One such institution is College of the Ozarks, which has always sought to preserve Christian values on campus. But its housing policy is certain to attract notice from aggressive federal officials, many of whom would take delight in forcing a school to choose between its religious convictions and costly battles with the federal government.

In an effort at heading off the application of the directive to it, the college is suing in federal district court to block its enforcement. In today’s Martin Center article, I write about the case.

College of the Ozarks is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has successfully fought against many governmental incursions against the liberties of schools that don’t care to operate as vassals of the government. ADF’s complaint offers a number of strong reasons for the court to enjoin the feds from applying HUD’s directive.

One is that the feds rushed this through without bothering with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to give notice of proposed rule changes and allow public comment on them. That would be enough to enjoin enforcement. The court might also decide that the change in meaning from “sex” to “gender orientation” is one that only Congress can legislate, not something an agency can decree.

There are also First  Amendment problems — freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Both justify setting this federal bludgeon aside.

Finally, ADF argues that under the Tenth Amendment, the feds have no authority to tell colleges how they must operate. The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect federalism — to keep the domain of the federal government within its written sphere and reserve everything else to the states or the people. Does Washington have the power to tell every college in the country how it must operate? The Tenth Amendment says no. I think it unlikely that a federal district court would rely on it to strike down egregious federal overreach like this, but I’m glad ADF made the argument.

The case is set for argument on May 19, I understand.