Home Blog Page 3783

Gallup CEO Warns Joe Biden: 42 Million Migrants Want Entry to U.S.

The CEO of Gallup posted a friendly warning for President Joe Biden: Roughly 42 million people south of Texas want to migrate into the United States.

Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO of the Gallup polling company, posted the warning March 24 as Biden struggles to deal with the migration wave unleashed by him and his pro-migration deputies:

Here are questions every leader should be able to answer regardless of their politics: How many more people are coming to the southern border? And what is the plan?

There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them if they would like to move to another country permanently if they could.

A whopping 27% said “yes.” This means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.

Gallup then asked them where they would like to move. Of those who want to leave their country permanently, 35% — or 42 million — said they want to go to the United States.

Seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make their move.

In addition to finding a solution for the thousands of migrants currently at the border, let’s include the bigger, harder question — what about all of those who would like to come? What is the message to them?

What is the 10-year plan?

330 million U.S. citizens are wondering. So are 42 million Latin Americans.

The United States already has very high rates of legal and illegal migration.

Fort example, roughly four million young Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for jobs, careers, spouses, homes, and families. Yet, the federal government imports roughly one million legal immigrants per year, each of whom compete for the jobs and housing sought by Americans.

The government also reinforces a churning labor force of roughly three million foreign workers — H-1Bs and H-2A workers, for example — in a wide variety of white-collar and blue-collar jobs.

And the federal government also does little to deport the resident population of at least eight million illegal workers who nudge down wages and nudge up housing prices.

Unsurprisingly, many polls show that Americans deeply oppose large-scale migration — despite the establishment’s insistence for over 60 years that their own country is a “Nation of Immigrants.”

For example, 58 percent of likely voters want immigration to be cut down to 700,000 or 500,000 people a year, according to a survey of 1,250 likely voters conducted by Rasmussen Reports in mid-March. Just 15 percent want it raised above the current level of roughly one million.

Current polls show that public opinion is moving against Biden. For example, 44 percent of independent voters say the immigration has “gotten worse” under Biden, according to a March 19-21 poll conducted by Politico and Morning Consult. Just 12 percent say it has “gotten better,” said the poll of 1994 registered voters.

But there is room for a bigger shift against Biden.

Twenty-nine percent of independents said immigration has “stayed the same” under Biden, likely because they do not follow or care about the issue. Those people may soon decide that immigration has gotten worse.

The Morning Consult question also showed that 44 percent of people who “somewhat approve” of Biden’s job performance say the immigration system “has stayed the same” since Biden was inaugurated. The “stayed the same” people may quickly shift into the “gotten worse” column once they see more migrants rush north to accept Biden’s offers of likely asylum, work permits, housing, and citizenship.

Even 28 percent of Democrats who “strongly approve” of Biden say the immigration system has “stayed the same.” Some of these may shift into the “gotten worse” column as more migrants appear at the border.

For many years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad American opposition to legal migrationlabor migration, and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.

The multiracialcross-sexnon-racistclass-basedintra-Democrat, and solidarity-themed opposition to labor migration coexists with generally favorable personal feelings toward legal immigrants and toward immigration in theory — despite the media magnification of many skewed polls and articles still pushing the 1950s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.

The deep public opposition is built on the widespread recognition that migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.

‘Driving a radical social agenda’: Conservative groups denounce Rachel Levine’s confirmation

Conservative groups have denounced the Senate’s confirmation of Dr. Rachel Levine to be assistant secretary of health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. President Joe Biden nominated Levine for the position, in part, because he would be the first openly trans-identifying individual to serve as a federal official. 

Levine, who was born Richard Levine and formerly served as Pennsylvania Health Secretary, was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday in a vote of 52-48.  

In remarks delivered before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the Levine confirmation an important milestone on behalf of the transgender community.

“As transgender Americans suffer higher rates of abuse, homelessness, and depression than almost every other group, it’s important to have national figures like Dr. Levine who, by virtue of being in the public spotlight, will help break down barriers of ignorance and fear,” Schumer said.

“The historic nature of her nomination should not be lost on anyone, but Dr. Levine thoroughly deserves to be confirmed on the strength of her qualifications. Despite several attacks on her gender identity over the past year, Dr. Levine has stayed laser-focused on helping the state of Pennsylvania manage and respond to COVID.”

However, many socially conservative groups like the American Principles Project have denounced Levine’s confirmation, saying in part that the appointment will lead to a backlash against Democrats.

APP President Terry Schilling explained that he believed the Levine confirmation was “historic” in that “the position of assistant secretary for health will be filled by someone who has openly and vocally advocated for allowing children to undergo sex-change procedures.”

“But while President Biden and Democrats may have fooled voters last fall into believing such an extreme position wasn’t a part of their agenda, they will not be able to do so next time around,” Schilling said.

“Every Democrat in the Senate is now on record as supporting childhood sex changes, and they will have to answer for it to their voters.”

Secret Service Intervened In Hunter Biden Gun Incident; Hunter May Have Lied On Background Check Form

Another scandal involving President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, broke on Thursday morning when a new report outlined allegations that the Secret Service intervened in a firearm-related incident a few years ago.

The report comes after Hunter Biden revealed in December that he was under federal criminal investigation over matters related to his taxes and overseas business dealings.

The new allegations facing Hunter Biden stem from an October 2018 incident between Hunter Biden and Hallie Biden, the wife of Hunter Biden’s deceased brother, Beau Biden. Hunter Biden dated his brother’s widow and later fathered a child with a stripper while he was living with Hallie Biden.

Hallie Biden allegedly took Hunter Biden’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, which prompted an investigation from law enforcement officials who were concerned because the trash can was close to a high school. Hallie Biden later returned to retrieve the firearm only to discover it was missing.

“Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact,” Politico reported. “The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws.”

Drug Addled Hunter Biden Lied On Background Check To Obtain A Gun He Later Lost

Hunter Biden denied his drug abuse to obtain a gun. He later lost it.

Hunter Biden lied about his history of abuse on a background check completed for the purpose of obtaining a firearm in Delaware. He later lost the firearm in a fight with his deceased brother’s widow, Hallie Biden, with whom he was in a relationship, according to Politico.

“Hunter responded ‘no’ to a question on the transaction record that asks, ‘Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’” reports Politico. The left wing website notes that this happened in 2018, only five years after Biden was ejected from the Navy after he tested positive for cocaine. Politico fails to note that 2018 was also the year Hunter Biden uploaded photos of himself with a crack pipe in his mouth that were later leaked to the New York Post, suggesting he was a current drug user. Politico also notes that lying on the form is a felony, though it is rarely prosecuted.

National File also released a redacted version of the diary of Ashley Biden, the sister of Hunter Biden, who wrote in 2019 that Hunter reminds her of drugs.

Politico describes the apparent fight with his then-girlfriend Hallie Biden that led to the firearm’s disappearance:

The incident began when Hallie searched Hunter’s pickup, which was parked at her home in Wilmington, because of unspecified “suspicions she had,” according to the Delaware State Police report. Inside the truck, she found a .38 revolver.

Chinese Hackers Made Fake Facebook Profiles, Apps To Spy On Uyghur Activists

Chinese hackers used fake Facebook profiles and spoof websites to target Uyghur activists with spy malware, the social media company announced on Wednesday.

Using various cyber espionage tactics, Facebook said, members of Earth Empusa or Evil Eye sought out Muslim Uyghur activists, journalists and dissidents from China’s Xinjiang region. But the sophisticated operation also stretched to individuals living in Turkey, Kazakhstan, Syria, Australia, Canada and the U.S., according to an investigation by the company.

“This activity had the hallmarks of a well-resourced and persistent operation, while obfuscating who’s behind it,” Facebook cybersecurity investigators said in a statement.

The objective of the phishing scam was to lure Uyghur audiences into clicking on false content links — either from a computer or smartphone — to infect the device with malware. In addition to posing as journalists and Uyghur activists, the hackers also developed phony apps and set up imposter websites with nearly identical url’s to real news sites that are popular with Uyghurs.

“On our platform, this cyber espionage campaign manifested primarily in sending links to malicious websites rather than direct sharing of the malware itself,” the company said.

US Jobless Claims Fall to 684,000, Fewest Since Pandemic

WASHINGTON—The number of people seeking unemployment benefits fell sharply last week to 684,000, the fewest since the pandemic erupted a year ago and a sign that the economy is improving.

Thursday’s report from the Labor Department showed that jobless claims fell from 781,000 the week before. It is the first time that weekly applications for jobless aid have fallen below 700,000 since mid-March of last year. Before the pandemic tore through the economy, applications had never topped that level.

Still, a total of 18.9 million people are continuing to collect jobless benefits, up from 18.2 million in the previous week. Roughly one-third of those recipients are in extended federal aid programs, which means they’ve been unemployed for at least six months.

Their prolonged joblessness could prove to be a long-term hindrance: Typically, many people who have been unemployed for extended periods struggle to find work even as the economy regains its health.

The economy has been showing signs of emerging from the pandemic crisis with renewed vigor, with spending picking up, manufacturing strengthening and employers adding workers. Hiring increased in February, with 379,000 added jobs—more than double January’s total. The economy expanded at a 4.3 percent annual rate in the final three months of last year, the government estimated Thursday, slightly faster than its previous estimate. That pace is widely expected to accelerate in the coming months, fueled by substantial government rescue aid.

Credit card data from JPMorgan Chase showed that consumer spending jumped last week as the $1,400 checks that are going to most adults under President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion emergency aid package began to be paid out. The Treasury says it has so far distributed 127 million payments worth $325 billion.

Last week, Federal Reserve policymakers substantially boosted their forecast for the economy this year, anticipating growth of 6.5 percent for 2021, up from an estimate of just 4.2 percent three months ago. That would be the fastest rate of expansion in any year since 1984. The Fed also projects that the unemployment rate will reach 4.5 percent by the end of this year, down from the current 6.2 percent.

Last week, some individual states reported sharp drops in applications for aid. In Illinois, they tumbled 80 percent to just under 15,000. In Ohio, they fell by nearly a third to 69,000.

Nationally, though, the number of recipients in an extended federal jobless benefits program jumped by 730,000 to 5.5 million, with nearly all the increase occurring in California.

Bernie Sanders Not ‘Comfortable’ With Trump’s Twitter Ban

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) expressed reservations about the Twitter ban of former President Donald Trump, saying he doesn’t like the idea of a “handful of high-tech people” wielding too much power.

Sanders made the remarks in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, in which Sanders was asked about Twitter banning Trump from its platform.

“Do I feel particularly comfortable that the then-president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter? I don’t feel comfortable about that,” Sanders said.

Trump was kicked off the social media platform after the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defending the decision in a series of tweets a week later.

“I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter,” Dorsey wrote.

“I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all,” he added.

Trump said Monday that Twitter and Facebook, which also deplatformed him, did him a “favor.”

President Trump
President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Pensacola, Fla., on Oct. 23, 2020. (Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images)

The former president told Newsmax that he was enjoying his break from social media and that he appreciated communicating with the public via emailed press releases.

“I do press releases,” Trump said. “And frankly, they’re more elegant than tweeting, as the expression goes, they’re really much more elegant and the word is getting out.”

Trump declined to confirm rumors he is planning to launch his own social media platform.

“We have a lot of options and something will happen with social media if I want it to happen,” Trump said, adding that he has “tremendous options” regarding launching a viable social media platform given his large following prior to the ban.

Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News on Sunday that ”I do think we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here with his own platform.”

While no details are available about what a Trump social media platform would look like, the former president’s championing of freedom of expression suggests it would unlikely to be a space that cracks down on controversial content.

Sanders, in his interview with Klein, said that he did not have a solution for how to balance freedom of speech with policing potentially harmful posts.

“I don’t know what the answer is. Do you want hate speech and conspiracy theories traveling all over this country? No,” Sanders said.

“But it is an issue that we have got to be thinking about. Because yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view,” he said.

Many Republicans and others have accused big tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter of using various techniques to suppress conservative voices and favor left-leaning causes.

The platforms have repeatedly denied any bias, saying they are impartially trying to navigate an intensely polarized landscape of competing voices, some of which get silenced if they violate terms of use guidelines and content policies.

Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

One last word on Governor Noem

The Reactionary reports:

A Brief Background

You might have seen South Dakota in the news lately. Legislation proposed by the South Dakota legislature, HB 1217, would require that that K-12 and higher education female sports be “available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.” Governor Noem proposed revisions which included limitations of the legislation to K-12 schools. The colleges were out.

Then all hell broke loose. The ADF went on the attack, stating Noem “has downplayed the injustices that girls and women are already facing when they are forced to compete against males.” Noem appeared on Tucker and didn’t help her case, though she didn’t completely melt down. A series of opinion pieces ensued, including one from our friend Margot Cleveland at The Federalist.

Then Noem’s spokesman put out a tone deaf statement. Instead of arguing the merits, he went for a hot take:

“But if any number of conservative pundits are to be believed, that same governor who refused to cave is now caving to the NCAA and Amazon on the issue of fairness in women’s sports. What? Apparently, uninformed cancel culture is fine when the right is eating their own.”

As you can imagine, the backlash got worse.

A view from above: What exactly needs fixing in South Dakota?

Let’s take a step back. Forget the legislation for a moment, and consider where South Dakota stands with women’s college sports. According to my research (and please, comment if I’m wrong), South Dakota colleges do not currently allow male-to-female transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports.

Noem, therefore, isn’t asked to fix the current state of college women’s sports in her state. Instead, she is asked to sign legislation that would eliminate an issue that may or may not exist in South Dakota’s future.

What are the real issues?

Male-to-female transgender athletes participating in women’s sports is the manifestation of broader issues, namely the obliteration of a distinction between women and transgender women1 and a furtherance of gender/sex ideologies on a general public who supports the status quo of women’s sports.

In other words, college athletics are just a means to a greater end: societal change. Those means are thwarted, and the ends are avoided, by legislation and by states – and the public – collectively taking a stand and keeping women’s sports for biological women.

How is this countered? With good laws.

There is little doubt that the fight to keep women’s sports for biological women (that is, a woman that was born a woman) will make it to the higher courts – perhaps the Supreme Court. It’s the big leagues. While we agree with the broader aims of HB 1217, the legislation proposed by the South Dakota legislature is so poorly written that it wouldn’t make it out of the minors.

For all the criticisms of Noem, I haven’t heard many people defend HB 1217 as a well-drafted law. And there are reasons for that.

The problems with the HB 1217 have been discussed by our friend and former federal prosecutor @Shipwreckedcrew, who explained some issues with the drafting of the legislation by the South Dakota legislature and suggested that the ACLU would likely get an injunction against the South Dakota statute in federal court.

I’ll continue on the theme he developed and explain other legal issues with the legislation.

  • Section 1 states that female sports are available “only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.” What of an equal protection claim with the legislation treating male-to-female athletes different than female-to-male athletes? Or how HB 1217 treats male and female sports different? Does this violate the “heightened scrutiny” that the Supreme Court places on “all gender based classifications”?
  • Section 2 states that a school/sanctioning entity shall obtain a written statement from a student or his parents that the student is not taking and has not taken “any performance enhancing drugs.” Nobody can say with certainty what that term means because the legislation provides zero guidance. Are South Dakota K-12 schools to follow World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines? Which prescription or over-the-counter drugs are on South Dakota’s prohibited list? Are certain levels of stimulants, like caffeine, prohibited? If “performance enhancing drugs” is undefined, how would it survive under South Dakota law, which requires that statutes not be vague?
  • Section 2 also states that a student may be prohibited from participating in sports where the school/sanctioning entity “has reasonable cause to believe that any information provided in accordance with this section is false or misleading.” But how does a school obtain such “reasonable cause”? Is it a suspicion, something more than a suspicion, or something they believe is more likely than not? Nobody knows because the legislature didn’t define the term or explain in detail exactly how a school can get to the point (evidence, testimony, etc.) of finding reasonable cause. That gives us another vagueness problem. Another question: how does punishment for “reasonable cause to believe” that information is “misleading” square with a student’s privilege to participate in athletics? I’m not sure courts would allow that.

Noem’s Other Proposals

HB 1217 also allowed for a cause of action where a student could sue the school, school district, athletic association or organization, or their employees for violations of the statute. Noem proposed that this section be struck in its entirety.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) General Counsel Kristen Waggoner stated on Twitter that this proposal from Noem “gutted the primary [legal] remedy for high school girls, denying them a right to sue when their rights are violated.”

But is that really the case?

For example, let’s say Governor Noem’s proposals are accepted and the law passes. Let’s further assume that after the law is signed, a high school female runner is scheduled to run against a male-to-female runner from another school in the 100 meter dash. Under Noem’s version of HB 1217, the school allowing the male-to-female athlete to run is in violation of the law.

What would stop a female student athlete from filing suit and requesting an injection/temporary restraining order where a violation of HB 1217 affected her?

Retaliation

Additionally, there are concerns that Noem’s version of HB 1217 allows for “retaliation” against students for complaints of HB 1217 violations. This would have to do with Noem’s proposed removal of a section of the law that includes this language:

If a student is subjected to retaliation or other adverse action, as a result of reporting a violation of this Act to an employee or representative of a school, school district, institution of higher education, athletic association or organization, or to a state or federal governmental entity having oversight authority, that student has a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages, and any other relief available under law, against the school, school district, institution of higher education, or athletic association or organization.

We can all agree that students should be protected from any type of retaliation for their protected speech. Students do not give up their constitutional rights once they walk into school.

This leads us to a question: If the “retaliation” section of HB 1217 is removed, do students still have a remedy if they are subject to retaliation for reporting violations?

The answer is yes.

As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Constantine v. George Mason University:

[F]or purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983, a plaintiff suffers adverse action if the defendant’s allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter “a person of ordinary firmness” from the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Fault and the Path Forward

Finally, this is a cultural fight that will be resolved in the courts. There’s a long list of conservative losses in such fights: abortion, gay marriage, etc. Why pick this fight with such a poorly written law?

What we need is serious legislation that will protect women’s sports and withstand legal challenges. HB 1217 doesn’t do that. Governor Noem’s revisions don’t do it either.

All of this is a long way of saying there are really two parties at fault here. First, look to the South Dakota legislature for bringing such a flawed law to the Governor. And second, Governor Noem should have offered revisions that would have strengthened the law and removed any fatal vagueness or constitutional problems.

But perhaps there’s more to the issue.

As I write this, something hit me. We condemn the NCAA for bullying states into compliance with the NCAA’s broader political beliefs and criticize Noem for bowing to NCAA pressure.

Yet I continue to watch college football and March Madness. I’m a faithful consumer of these NCAA products. Maybe I’m at fault too.

Video: Rand Paul Recounts Run-In With ‘Crazy’ Pro-Mask ‘Karen’ At The Gym

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show Friday night and recounted a run-in he had with a particularly vociferous ‘Karen’ who reported him to the management for using the running machine without a face mask.

“I was on the treadmill the other day and some Karen goes and tells the people ‘He’s on a treadmill; he’s running without a mask’ Paul told the Fox News host.

“Is this the world we’re going to live in, where everybody’s reporting everyone and the Gestapo’s going to come [and] arrest you?” the Senator questioned.

Arguing that the burden of proof regarding masks should be on the government, Paul continued, “One thing about freedom is, freedom doesn’t have to be practical or have a study to say why you should have to have freedom. They need to have a study and a scientific proof to show us why we shouldn’t have freedom. I shouldn’t have to prove that I want to be free and I want to be left alone and I want to breathe the air.”

Watch:

Elsewhere in the interview, Paul commented on his exchange with Anthony Fauci earlier last week when he accused Fauci of engaging in ‘theater’ by wearing two masks.

“There was Dr. Fauci’s opinion, his conjecture that someday there might be a [COVID-19] variant that escapes the control of the vaccine and becomes a pandemic and hospitalizes and kills people — but there’s no evidence that it has happened. He thinks it might happen, so you need to wear the mask until he’s sure that things that might happen are not going to happen,” Paul said.

He added, “There are no news reports and no scientific studies saying that after vaccination that there is some sort of widespread contagion that people vaccinated are spreading the disease.”

The Senator further noted “What Fauci won’t tell you is that he’s telling you a noble lie. He’s lying to you because he doesn’t think we’re smart enough to make decisions. His fear is, if the vaccinated quit wearing the mask, the unvaccinated will say, ‘What the hell, I’m not wearing a mask either.’”

Washington University Professor Says Credits from Courses on Creationism Should Not Count Toward a Science Degree

(Christian Headlines) A Washington University computational biologist says credits from courses with creationist subjects should not be counted toward a science degree.

According to Faithwire, Dr. Joshua Swamidass says this “constructive solution” would hold Christian institutions to a higher academic standard than other colleges.

“Credit from courses that include creation science should not be used toward science degrees,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Nor should they be eligible for transfer to secular institutions.”

He added that those courses with creationism are “deviations from national norms” that “need to be prominently disclosed, tracked and reported.”

His suggestion includes noting on official transcripts that the course included creationism.

Swamidass’ opinion piece comes in response to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which recently debated if they should still consider the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (Tracs) as an accrediting agency.

Meanwhile, David Klinghoffer, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, said he worries making the change would be more harmful.

“Creationist thoughts and those who think them, are indeed penalized in his system,” Klinghoffer writes in Evolution News & Science Today. “Invidious labeling is all about reward and punishment….and this is a very dangerous concept.”

Steve Pettit, the president of Bob Jones University, also said he was wary of making a change.

“Our students, while adhering to biblical viewpoints on the origin and diversity of life, must be fully conversant with, and able to think critically about both models,” he explained. “Dr. Swamidass’s ‘compromise’—excluding credit from courses presenting evidence for multiple models—would marginalize outstanding scientists with biblical viewpoints about origins,” he said.