“Hands up, don’t shoot!” This infamous slogan rose to prominence during the protests which broke out after Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. The phrase, which is still repeated at Black Lives Matter protests to this day, is a reference to a debunked <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri">claim</a> by Dorian Johnson that Michael Brown was executed by Officer Darren Wilson despite surrendering and holding his hands in the air.
Since then, the initial claims about Brown supposedly being “murdered” while surrendering have been fully dismantled on multiple occasions, most notably by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice. The Obama Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, found in its exhaustive investigation of the case that witness accounts and forensic evidence overwhelmingly indicated that Brown did not hold up his hands and surrender. The decision not to press charges against Officer Darren Wilson is telling, given Obama’s open embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement for political gain.
As detailed in its famous <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1681212/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.pdf">final report</a>, Obama-Biden administration ultimately concluded that all the available evidence painted an entirely different story than the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/">racially charged narrative</a> that sparked the Ferguson protests and riots. The administration found that evidence indicated that Brown assaulted Officer Wilson, attempted to steal his firearm, and then charged at him. Here’s the legal analysis offered in the investigation based on all of the witness accounts and forensic evidence:
<blockquote>…Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a specific intent to violate the law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law. </blockquote>
With an utter disregard for the conclusions of their own Justice Department, Democratic politicians still stand on the false soapbox of “hands up, don’t shoot” by shamelessly painting Brown as an innocent martyr. Among those still doing so are presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his newly announced running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), both of whom posted nearly identical statements on Aug. 9, the sixth-year anniversary of the tragic incident.
“It&#8217;s been six years since Michael Brown&#8217;s life was taken in Ferguson — reigniting a movement,” Biden tweeted. “We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing.”
“Six years ago Michael Brown was killed at the hands of police, sparking a nationwide movement and a desperately needed conversation that we are still having to this day,” Harris wrote on the same day. “We cannot give up fighting against police brutality.”
Former presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) also posted a statement listing out various famous police-involved shooting victims.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It&#39;s been six years since Michael Brown&#39;s life was taken in Ferguson — reigniting a movement. We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing.
&mdash; Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1292505925685633025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Six years ago Michael Brown was killed at the hands of police, sparking a nationwide movement and a desperately needed conversation that we are still having to this day. We cannot give up fighting against police brutality.
&mdash; Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1292474475238379520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Stephon Clark, Atatiana Jefferson, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and too many others should still be alive today.
&mdash; Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1292544693822201856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
In order to avoid the obvious “fact-checkability” of the original Michael Brown story, politicians on the Left rely on their effective strategy of conflating disparate instances along racial lines and dismissing any subsequent criticism of inevitable inaccuracies by simply arguing that it doesn’t matter whether specific examples happened or not. After all, they are indicative of a “deeper truth.” The same logic is applied in order to ignore race hoaxes or false accusations of sexual assault. “This case might not be true, but it points to a deeper truth.”
Such flawed logic allows Warren, who prides herself on possessing some level of intellectual honesty, to assign one standard level of victimhood across multiple cases based upon race alone. The fact that the Obama-Biden administration determined that Brown was likely killed after rushing an officer he had assaulted after trying to steal his weapon is irrelevant. To the opportunistic Left, driven by their obsession with shallow identity politics and their desire to capitalize on racial division, truth plays second fiddle to skin color.
There are two important points which we must acknowledge. The first is that individual acts of police brutality do occur, and racism can play a role. But thorough investigations must precede such charges, not the other way around. The second is that many politicians on the Left see the issue of racism and police brutality as a reliable political lever and are therefore motivated to slander the character of the entire law enforcement community and ignore evidence of valid police action in order to pander to elements of their voting base.
Despite attempts to paint the issue of police brutality as deeply partisan, the reality is quite the opposite. For example, when evidence suggested that the police acted improperly when George Floyd was killed, the outrage spanned the political spectrum. However, such unity is far from politically advantageous, and so division must be intentionally sown in order to provide the opportunity for ideological profit. Such cynicism is what drives politicians to carefully conflate valid and invalid uses of police force under one broad banner of “police brutality.”
When their blatant falsehoods are identified, they hide behind their “deeper truth,” claiming that critics are guilty of denying that the issue of police brutality even exists. Eventually, they hope, the lie will become true because no voices will remain to question it.
So what can be done? In order to achieve our common goal of fighting police brutality, we must do three things. The first is to recognize that this must be a bipartisan effort. The second is to reject the use of identity politics to invalidate truth and understand that the assignment of innocence or guilt based solely on skin color is not only racist, but the very antithesis of justice. Finally, we must be tireless in our efforts to prevent the further promotion of the false slogans like “Hands up, don’t shoot!” If we grow silent, then truth will forever be corrupted by falsehood in the ceaseless quest for political power.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-trump-2020-five-things-he-must-do-to-win">Trump 2020: Five Things He Must Do To Win</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Joe Biden

HAWORTH: Biden, Kamala Ignore Obama-Biden Administration’s Own Findings On Brown To Push Agenda

Barack Obama

Kamala Harris

Michael Brown

After weeks of speculation, Joe Biden finally announced that Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) would be his running mate.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I have the great honor to announce that I’ve picked <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KamalaHarris</a> — a fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants — as my running mate.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1293280411150217219?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2020</a></blockquote>
As an individual, Joe Biden’s apparent weakness is actually somewhat of a strength when compared to the Left’s perception of Donald Trump. With the election being presented as a choice between Trump and “not Trump,” the fact that Joe Biden is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-of-bidens-most-significant-flip-flops">lying hypocrite</a> or is experiencing obvious <a href="https://youtu.be/ztK9P2WywUE">mental decline</a> becomes unfortunately irrelevant. The fact that he described himself as a “transition candidate” has shifted the focus to the identity of his running mate; this is further tightened given the likelihood that Joe Biden will not remain in office until 2024. With this in mind, the election is no longer between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but between Donald Trump and Biden’s vice presidential pick. Through this lens, Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris should signal the death of Biden’s campaign.
The first reason for this is that Harris failed to compete with the man she now seeks to replace. Despite the assumption that she would be a formidable candidate, Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign was dead on arrival. Harris demonstrated a consistent level of undeserved arrogance, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455691-harris-responds-to-gabbard-criticism-im-obviously-a-top-tier-candidate-so-i">stating</a> that “I’m obviously a top-tier candidate,” despite <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html">proving herself</a> to be “an uneven campaigner” who “changed her message and tactics to little effect and had a staff torn into factions.” Even at the height of her lackluster campaign, she <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20953284/kamala-harris-polls-2020-election">peaked</a> at 15% voter support. Such a demonstrably unpopular candidate, rejected passionately by her own party, could hardly bolster Biden’s chances.
Secondly, Kamala Harris is fundamentally unlikeable. While the Left will rely on preemptively rejecting any criticism of Harris as racist and/or sexist, the unavoidable reality is that likeability is crucially important when it comes to battles of personality. With Kamala Harris using Joe Biden as a confused Trojan Horse, it doesn’t help that she doesn’t possess the same social abilities as her running mate. Her multiple attempts to gain “street cred” by saying that she loves Cardi B (a Bernie Sanders supporter), or that she <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-says-she-listened-to-snoop-dogg-tupac-while-smoking-weed-in-college-years-before-they-made-music">smoked marijuana</a> while listening to Snoop Dogg albums, which were yet to be released, elicit the same shuddering cringe-fits brought to us by her fellow panderers Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Put bluntly, Biden is liked. Harris is not.
Finally, and most importantly, while the fake Kamala Harris is laughably awkward, the notion of the real Kamala Harris becoming President should terrify us all. Her policies are dangerously radical, and The New York Times will engage in obscene levels of shameless gaslighting by presenting Harris as a “<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1293281331661672453">pragmatic moderate</a>” to try and convince you otherwise. Her views include sporadic calls to dismantle private health insurance, the restriction of religious freedoms, and calling for the use of monarchical executive powers to ban “assault weapons.” When Joe Biden pointed out the pesky roadblock to Harris’ fascistic demands – the United States Constitution – Kamala Harris’ <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-september-2019/h_891093d64de8feedb12284747def8212">response</a> was to cackle “Let’s say ‘Yes we can.’”
Not only does she pose a real threat to fundamental American principles, her own history should disqualify her from holding any positions of further power. Tulsi Gabbard famously tore her performance as a District Attorney and Attorney General to pieces with <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1293296665432977409">lethal precision</a>, and Harris’ professional past is littered with behaviors which would surely be rejected by the Democrat’s anti-law enforcement base if they possessed even a shred of intellectual honesty.
What makes the selection of Kamala Harris uniquely moronic is not her recent failure, her radicalism, or her personality. After all, the Democratic platform is dripping with such characters. No, what makes Kamala Harris an abysmal pick is her self-destructive hypocrisy. During the last round of the Democratic Party debates, Harris mounted her <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/kamala-harris-biden-busing.html">last stand</a> upon a platform of “racial justice” by confronting Biden regarding his work with segregationists, stating that he opposed busing, and implying that he was therefore racist.
This wasn’t the first time Kamala Harris tried to throw Biden under the campaign bus they will now – presumably – share. When Biden faced accusations of sexual assault or inappropriate touching, Harris attempted to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/437107-harris-i-believe-biden-accusers">capitalize</a> on the opportunity. “I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,” she said. Of course, those who remember Harris’ narcissistic use of the Kavanaugh hearings to launch her presidential bid will know that spurious accusations of sexual assault are hardly unusual.
However, this was when Kamala Harris was competing with Joe Biden. Once Harris’ campaign imploded, she immediately endorsed her enemy.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> has served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever. I will do everything in my power to help elect him the next President of the United States. <a href="https://t.co/DbB2fGWpaa">pic.twitter.com/DbB2fGWpaa</a>
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1236622740930560001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
She drew from the same verbiage of sudden respect and moral paternalism when celebrating her nomination as Biden’s running mate.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> can unify the American people because he&#8217;s spent his life fighting for us. And as president, he&#8217;ll build an America that lives up to our ideals.
I&#8217;m honored to join him as our party&#8217;s nominee for Vice President, and do what it takes to make him our Commander-in-Chief.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1293290197103390721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2020</a></blockquote>
Kamala Harris prides herself on being a ruthless prosecutor, delivering watertight arguments to destroy her opponents. So let’s ask the obvious question: is Biden a racist misogynist or not? If yes, then why is Kamala Harris – who has a propensity for reminding us that she is a black woman on the campaign trail – endorsing a racist misogynist? If not, then why did she lie?
The reason is obvious. Kamala Harris is a morally vapid and power hungry individual who has no regard for the truth. All that stands between her and the White House is Donald Trump and a mentally unstable cyclist who she occasionally believes to be a racist rapist.
She must not win.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

HAWORTH: Kamala Harris Must Not Win

2020 Election

In no uncertain terms, Trump’s re-election campaign has experienced several major wobbles. While Biden’s lead in the polls has been reduced in recent days, there are many conservatives who are doubting whether Trump can retain the presidency if he continues along his current trajectory. Frankly, I am one of them.
However, there is hope. Here are five fundamental issues Donald Trump must address if he hopes to regain his momentum and defeat Joe Biden.
Biden’s Mental Health
The American Left have invested in Joe Biden, an aging candidate who is in <a href="https://youtu.be/ztK9P2WywUE">clear mental decline</a>. On a regular basis, he seems to stumble over simple sentences, announce that he is running for Senate, or forget where he is. It seems that he can’t even <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztK9P2WywUE&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=16">directly defend</a> his mental state:
“I am very willing to let the American public judge my physical and mental fill&#8230;my physical as well as my mental fill&#8230;fitness.”
If this statement doesn’t act as blood in the water for Republicans with Donald Trump asking the American public to judge Biden’s mental fill&#8230;fill&#8230;fitness, then the Trump campaign simply does not deserve to win in November.
The subject of the mental capabilities of candidates should not be taboo, and certainly hasn’t been when it comes to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/04/john-mccains-funeral-george-bush-barack-obama-bipartisan-hypocrisy-column/1185092002/">Republican candidates</a>. If anything, the mental stability of the most powerful man or woman in the world should be the public’s top concern. With that in mind, Joe Biden proved himself to be fundamentally unfit for the role of president. Isolated at home, under no pressure whatsoever, he couldn’t even pronounce the word “fitness” while asking the American public to judge his fitness.
Rather than wasting time boasting about the apparently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-cognitive-test.html">exemplary results</a> of his own cognitive test, all Trump needs to do is play this clip of Biden on repeat, and say the word “fitness.” Game over.
Vice President 
To put it bluntly, with Joe Biden’s rapid decline on full display, it’s unlikely that Biden will remain in office for a full term. He has even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/politics/joe-biden-vice-president-pick.html">stated</a> that “I view myself as a transition candidate.” This means that Joe Biden’s choice of Vice President is profoundly impactful, given that we could find ourselves with an unelected president for only the fifth time in United States history if Biden’s presidency ends prematurely.
For weeks, Biden has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/us/politics/joe-biden-vice-presidential-search.html">repeatedly delayed</a> the announcement of his running mate. The reason for this is likely that Biden – or more likely his staff – understands that his vice presidential candidates are only going to broaden the range of criticisms which can be launched against his campaign.
The political attacks write themselves when we consider the potential candidates under consideration. Susan Rice, the rumored front-runner, will be hit with the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/five-more-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-susan-rice/">Benghazi scandal</a> and her <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/marco-rubio-susan-rice-email-flynn-leak">involvement</a> in the infamous Michael Flynn case. Kamala Harris will be undone with a combination of Tulsi Gabbard’s <a href="https://youtu.be/4tQ_CxV4GSY?t=328">destruction of Harris&#8217; campaign</a> and the fact that Harris <a href="https://youtu.be/oCQYOrBzY74?t=225">accused</a> Joe Biden of being racist before endorsing him weeks later. Karen Bass has a <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/rep-karen-bass-praised-communist-party-usa-member/">history</a> of praising communists, Stacey Abrams is famous for nothing other than trying to fail upward, and Elizabeth Warren’s history of sporadic Native American heritage speaks for itself.
Regardless of Biden’s eventual choice, Trump and his campaign must take advantage of this continued hesitancy by criticizing both Biden’s choice of candidates and the lack of decisiveness when it comes to selecting Biden’s likely replacement.
Communism and Socialism 
When you look at the Democratic Party’s platform, you would assume that Bernie Sanders had been nominated as the Left’s candidate to face Trump. The radicalism of Biden’s manifesto, and the fact that he has fearfully <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-of-bidens-most-significant-flip-flops">flipped</a> on fundamental positions, stands as evidence that Biden is a Trojan Horse for the insidious wave of communist, socialist, and Marxist ideologies which threaten to engulf American thought.
While the notion of the United States as a socialist nation is undeniably terrifying, the danger posed also presents Trump with the ability to change the focus of the election. Rather than its current state – a referendum on Trump and his personality – Trump has the opportunity to reshape the election to be a referendum on socialism. In <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/four-americans-embrace-form-socialism.aspx">2019</a>, 51% of Americans had a negative opinion of socialism, and if the election becomes a matter of embracing or rejecting socialism, Trump will remain in the White House until 2024.
Race
For the first time in decades, conservatives have an opportunity to destroy the Left’s assumed monopoly on the subject of race. The root of this strategy has two components – Trump’s non-political history and Biden’s inability to avoid saying the quiet part out loud.
The Left routinely take minority voting blocs for granted. While career politicians will find it difficult to overcome the absurd premise that Democrats are the only valid choice for minority communities, Donald Trump should use his past popularity amongst leaders who now despise him as evidence of their partisan “hackery.” For example, Al Sharpton (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-democrats-obsession-al-sharpton-ian-haworth">to whom any Democratic hopeful must bend the knee</a>) called Donald Trump a “white nationalist.” Trump should disintegrate Sharpton’s undeserved authority – and therefore all partisan hyperbole from other “leaders” – by questioning why Sharpton openly embraced him until the moment he became a Republican.
In addition to surfacing the Left’s clear lack of racial principles, Joe Biden’s recent history of unquestionable racism should enable conservatives to wrestle control of the racial narrative from the Democratic Party. Just in the past few days, Biden has used the term “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/05/joe-biden-reporter-cognitive-test-391771">junkie</a>” during an interview with a black reporter when asked whether he had taken a cognitive test, and stated that the Latino community is diverse, “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/joe-biden-latino-african-american-remark-392354">unlike the African American community</a>.”
Again, Trump’s strategy must be to hold Biden’s statements up for all to see, and to ask how the Left would react if Trump used the term “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/05/joe-biden-reporter-cognitive-test-391771">junkie</a>” during an interview with a black reporter, or insinuated a lack of diversity among African Americans. The Left’s silence on both Biden’s mental instability and his clear racism should be damning. It’s up to Trump to make it so.
COVID-19
Finally, it is clear that the overt politicization of COVID-19 is the Left’s last remaining strategy to unseat Donald Trump. For weeks, they have characterized the federal government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as an abject failure. The attempt to fuel the spread of Trump Derangement Syndrome has resulted in the dismissal of basic truths, such as China’s clear culpability for the COVID-19 outbreak.
Again, Trump must redirect this criticism by refactoring the topic of debate. When blamed for the impact of COVID-19, Trump should simply echo the praise his administration received from the Democratic <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/28/you-wouldnt-know-it-coverage-gop-governors-are-managing-covid-19-far-better-than-their-democratic-counterparts/">state governors and mayors</a> whose policies are responsible for the bulk of the American COVID-19 death rate. When blamed for the spread of COVID-19, Trump should place the blame for COVID-19 squarely at the feet of the <a href="https://youtu.be/Ss4Ho-Pn4Qw">deceptive</a> Chinese Communist Party, and remind the American public that the Left’s response to Trump’s travel restriction from China (which likely saved thousands of lives) was simply to accuse him of <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498350-biden-trumps-coronavirus-response-has-been-nakedly-xenophobic">racism</a>.
The debate surrounding COVID-19 can be leveraged to present American voters with simple binary decisions. The election can be a choice between being supportive or critical of the Chinese Communist Party, remembering that the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/04/21/u-s-views-of-china-increasingly-negative-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/">majority</a> of Americans have unfavorable views of the communist dictatorship. The election can be a choice between the Republican and Democratic response to COVID-19, noting that the death toll is “<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/26/coronavirus-death-toll-is-heavily-concentrated-in-democratic-congressional-districts/">heavily concentrated in Democratic congressional districts</a>.” Finally, the election can be a choice between the Democratic Party’s endorsement of lawless rioting and the notion of law and order.
These questions have obvious answers for most Americans. It’s up to Trump to make the election focus on these questions.
***
Joe Biden should be a gift to conservatives. He is in clear mental decline. His unwillingness to announce a running mate is either a sign of uncertainty or fear. He has become a gormless puppet of the socialist Left. He demonstrates the absurd hypocrisy of the Left’s claim of moral superiority when it comes to race. He represents a Party who are responsible for much of the failure surrounding COVID-19, including the death rate in some Democratic areas, the politically correct attempt to defend the Chinese Communist Party, and the violent riots which have left cities in ashes.
It is up to Donald Trump to seize this opportunity, and present the American public with binary decisions which leave them with no choice but to vote for him. If he loses, then he will be to blame for the potentially irreversible injection of radical Leftism into the American political psyche. For that reason, he must win.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Trump rally

HAWORTH: Trump 2020: Five Things He Must Do To Win

Donald Trump

As COVID-19 grows to consume every element of our society, the focus has now landed on the subject of education. When should schools re-open? What protections should be put in place for teachers? What should “the new normal” be for children and their education? While these are all important questions during these unprecedented times, another stunning question is also being discussed: “Should schools re-open at all?”
While portions of the American Left engage in an absurd battle over demands from teachers unions who see this crisis as an opportunity for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nations-largest-teachers-unions-back-safe-schools-plan-that-demands-police-free-schools-an-end-to-private-education">political gain</a>, some on the Right are in danger of failing to fight in favor of reopening schools. The reason for this is the widespread view that alternative educational solutions, such as homeschooling, make the debate over public schools redundant.
The issue here is not whether homeschooling should be permitted — it is obviously the right of any parent to choose the style and substance of their child’s education — or whether homeschooling is effective — <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reasons-homeschooling-is-the-smartest-way-to-teach-kids-today-2018-1#students-may-achieve-more-in-the-long-run-6">data</a> suggests that “homeschooled children tend to do better on standardized tests, stick around longer in college, and do better once they&#8217;re enrolled.” The issue is the underlying assumptions required to enable the general conclusion that all parents should homeschool their children as a solution to the COVID-19-induced educational crisis.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Schools don’t want to open, and they don’t want to educate the children? Okay, problem solved. We can all keep our tax dollars and we’ll home school our kids or work with our neighbors to find local solutions. Thanks. Problem solved.
&mdash; Dan Bongino (@dbongino) <a href="https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1289918336805953547?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Such statements certainly don’t come from positions of malice or spite. In fact, they are almost exclusively motivated by an honest desire for children to receive the benefits of a good education. However, while there are certainly legitimate criticisms of the public school system, including curriculum, school choice, and funding, some conservatives are making the mistake of providing arguments rooted in idealism over realism, and make a few critical errors by claiming that homeschooling is an appropriate solution to the broken — and now closed — public school system.
The first is that these arguments assume the existence of the resources homeschooling demands. Children require basic supplies, an established space in which to study, and access to resources such as the internet. The unfortunate reality is that many families are not able to afford the supplies required to homeschool their child. Some <a href="https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-home/">9 million</a> children (14% of children between the ages of 3 and 18) don’t have access to the internet at home. Without adequate funds or internet access, it’s unrealistic to expect poorer families or neighborhoods to provide their children with appropriate or equitable levels of education.
The second mistake is the assumption that all adults are either able or willing to homeschool their children. Speaking frankly, the fact that some parents may wish to homeschool their children does not mean that they are either educationally or financially capable of doing so. When it comes to poor neighborhoods, the concept of finding “community solutions” seems somewhat lacking in compassion when everyone in that community is under the similar financial stress.
In addition, considering the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/">familiar statistic</a> that 72% of children in the African-American community are born into single-parent homes, many of those households would be left to decide between providing for their children financially or educationally.
Finally, the brutal fact is that some parents simply do not value education and would not provide their children with any educational support.
When it comes to education, conservatives often approach this area of debate by focusing on successful examples of alternatives. Yes, the benefits provided by private or charter schools are often preferable to public schools. Yes, an involved home support system is optimal for a child’s success. Yes, parents should have the option to choose their child’s school.
However, when it comes to early education, conservatives must also acknowledge that equality of opportunity must be a primary goal. It is the purpose, and duty, of our public school system, as imperfect as it is, to provide those who were born without the benefits of others with the opportunity to better themselves through the meritocracy of education.
Conservatives should reject the attempts to use the closure of public schools as leverage to achieve radical political aims, while also taking the lead when it comes to the fight to re-open schools for those who depend on them. If we abandon public schools by assuming that the alternatives for some are realistic options for all, we abandon future generations to real and inescapable inequity. If we truly believe in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, then we must also work to provide children with the opportunity that some parents cannot, or unfortunately will not, provide.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-ways-orwells-1984-perfectly-describes-the-american-lefts-quest-for-power">5 Ways Orwell’s ‘1984’ Perfectly Describes The American Left’s Quest For Power</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Empty Chairs And Tables In Classroom

HAWORTH: Why Conservatives Should Fight For Reopening Public Schools

Coronavirus

COVID-19

Education

In our politically obsessed society, references to George Orwell&#8217;s “1984” are so common that they are at risk of becoming cliché. Terms like “thoughtcrime” and “doublespeak” are effective retorts to the reliable buffet of political lies told every day. The American Left have made <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/11/teaching-1984-in-2016/508226/">repeated</a> attempts to claim that the United States under the Trump administration is <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teens-1984-george-orwell-trump_n_5892445ce4b070cf8b8060a7">synonymous</a> with the “dystopian world in which war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength” described in 1984. However, when we analyze the themes explored in George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, we increasingly feel that we are reading what appears to be the American Left’s playbook.
1. History
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
On multiple occasions, the Left have demonstrated a desire to rewrite history with two primary objectives. The first is to escape their own history, and the second is to reshape history to enable their future. After all, the Democratic Party is forever tarnished by the legacy of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow. Even after the controversial and refuted “switch,” Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s repeated use of the phrase “n***er bill” during the Civil Rights era exemplifies the fact that the American Left never truly banished racism from its platform. Instead, they embraced a paternalistic bigotry of low expectations which exists to this day.
While this strategy is applied to American history through absurdities like the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/historians-shred-nyt-1619-project-claiming-slavery-defines-america">intellectually fraudulent</a> “1619 Project,” the same effort has been exerted against inconvenient elements of world history. The fact that fascism is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-deadly-double-standard-of-communism-vs-fascism">rejected</a>while communism, socialism, and Marxism are accepted is testament to the success of the American Left in purposefully failing to educate younger generations on the inevitable failure of Leftist regimes.
Because of this erasure of history, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html">comments</a> from Joe Biden like “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” or that Mitt Romney would put African Americans “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains/">back in chains</a>” are ignored. It is why those who openly describe themselves as communists, socialists, or Marxists are embraced and celebrated. It is why we seem to be repeating the mistakes of the past.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
2. Language
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
After history is reformatted to be politically convenient, the next component of the Left’s Orwellian strategy is to gain control of our language in order to achieve ideological ends. There are countless <a href="https://americanmind.org/essays/the-terms-of-our-defeat/">examples</a> of this tactic, including the redefinition of racism to align with the flawed notion of intersectionality, the demand that you prove fealty by chanting “Black Lives Matter” with no regard for its underlying premises or the radical organization it supports, or the assertion that we must “Believe Women” despite the obvious fact that men and women are equally capable of duplicity.
The Left understands that achieving full control of language will open the gateway to their subsequent goal of controlling our culture. The generational removal of methods of dissent or disagreement, alongside the subjective redefinition of words for political gain, will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Left focuses on speech more than anything else. “Speech is violence” justifies a violent reaction to speech, until the only speech that remains is deemed politically acceptable.
“It&#8217;s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
3. Truth
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one&#8217;s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
As the Left’s grip on our language grows tighter, and historical excerpts which debunk their radical principles and positions are intentionally wiped away, they are finally equipped to target and redefine the ultimate and central metric of ideological debate: truth and logic.
While the notion that politicians have a habit of being deceptive shouldn’t be a shocking revelation, the Left’s modern approach to the definition of truth goes far beyond the intentional use of simple falsehoods. To put things bluntly, we have left the realm of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and have instead entered an illogical universe where sex and gender simultaneously have no meaning while also being characteristics of upmost importance.
Just like Orwell in 1984, we use the mathematical certainty that “2 + 2 = 4” as an example of concrete truth. However, even such binary notions have been slowly eradicated, with the culturally dominant Left demanding that we accept a fluid version of truth which disregards fundamental logic. For example, if men are women and women are men, how can the Left concurrently posit that our society is dominated by a systemic scourge of malicious misogynistic males who forcefully hold females in positions of subjugation and servitude?
“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”
4. Freedom
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
As truth becomes subjective, the unfortunate outcome is that freedom is diminished. The very notion of freedom has been subtly redefined to remove its original connection to individual liberty with the necessary partner of personal responsibility. Instead, freedom has become tainted by notions of selfishness and entitlement, with no regard for the individual freedom of others. In short, the negative rights of all have been replaced by the positive rights of some.
While this problem also exists on the American Right, the American Left approaches freedom in the same manner as George Orwell, with a distinct focus on the restriction of thought and speech.
Those who speak objective truths —  such as referencing <a href="https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism">statistical evidence</a> which counters the claim that police brutality is both racist and systemic, or that life cannot be measured as valid or invalid along a scale of convenience, or even that men and women are different — are castigated as bigots, societally “cancelled,” or even punished.
The fact that the Left attempts to justify such attacks on free speech — whether truthful or not — under the guise of achieving some notion of equality or tolerance is irrelevant when we consider that, without freedom of speech, we can never be free.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
5. Propaganda
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”
No oppressive regime can exist in a vacuum, and all require a method of enforcing their demands. While the (remaining) pages of history are riddled with stories of power achieved through violence alone, the mainstream Left is potentially more dangerous because they exercise control and power not through the violence of groups like Antifa — whom they are happy to passively support — but through the control of truth through curated propaganda in the form of “objective journalism.”
The term “fake news” is so overused (and often misused) that it has lost all meaning. Unfortunately, this has allowed the dishonesty of the mainstream media to hide in plain sight. Instead of performing their assumed “duty” as objective journalists, they have morphed into an elitist gaggle of activists. Instead of screaming their demands in the streets, they shape their reality in our collective psyche through their words and voices.
Ultimately, the blame for this prevalence of shameless lies falls not just on the declining fraternity of journalists, but on society as their audience and consumers. However, it is arguably impossible for a society to question the given narrative when its freedom has been diluted, its ability to question stunted, and its understanding of contextual history rewritten. The nail in this particular coffin is the despicable compulsion of the political and journalistic classes to present adherence to subjective policy as proof of one’s virtue. By doing so, they bypass the need for debate or justification, instead providing people with a lazy method of proving virtue and ideological purity.
The mainstream media have abandoned any hint of objectivity, but continue to benefit from the generational levels of trust and respect earned by their predecessors. Until that changes, their deceitful words will remain powerful, and as a result they will continue to be convenient mouthpieces for the Left.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking&#8211;not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
****
George Orwell’s marvelous yet terrifying novel is a hauntingly appropriate novel to reference when criticizing the actions of any political movement. However, in recent years it appears as if the American Left have started to treat it not as a work of fiction, but as a guidebook for power.
Their objective is made simple if our children don’t read — and more crucially understand — profound political works like 1984. Why do you think the Left wants to control our education, our history, and our words?
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-the-difference-between-cancel-culture-and-free-speech">The Difference Between Cancel Culture And Free Speech</a>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Lorne Greene In &#8216;1984&#8217;

HAWORTH: 5 Ways Orwell’s ‘1984’ Perfectly Describes The American Left’s Quest For Power

Democratic Party

Free Speech

Hate Speech

Leftism

Media Bias

Earlier this month, the hashtag “#JewishPrivilege” <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-white-supremacists-trigger-twitterstorm-by-using-jewishprivilege-hashtag-1.8990556">trended</a> on Twitter, spreading a “mixture of classic conspiratorial theories involving Jewish domination and control of the media, Holocaust denial and accusations of underwriting social unrest movements so that Jews could displace whites with minority groups.”
Leveraging our deep experience of combining suffering with sarcasm, Jews on Twitter <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-jewish-twitter-users-celebrities-took-down-virtual-anti-semitic-ncna1233915">quickly rallied</a> to flip the use of #JewishPrivilege to share stories of both modern and generational anti-Semitism.
Using the concept of “Jewish privilege” to justify the circular argument that so-called “Jewish success” is ensured by “Jewish influence” is nothing new. For centuries, Jews have been labeled as malevolent puppet masters, with their disproportionate success in various societies seen as further proof of the breadth and depth of their “control.” This remains true to this very day, with the same conspiratorial anti-Semitic rhetoric spread by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/entertainment/nick-cannon-viacom-trnd/index.html">actors</a>, <a href="https://jewishjournal.com/news/317054/rapper-ice-cube-accused-of-anti-semitism/">musicians</a>, and even <a href="https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/ilhan-omar-voted-2019s-antisemite-of-the-year-613308">members of Congress</a>.
While the anti-Semitism demonstrated by “Jewish privilege” is the same sort of shallow bigotry which we have witnessed for centuries, anti-Semitism is a “<a href="https://rabbisacks.org/mutating-virus-understanding-antisemitism/">mutating virus</a>.” There is a new tentacle of anti-Jewish bigotry which continues to go widely unrecognized, anti-Zionism. Criticism of Israel has become a veil used by anti-Semites to dismiss any and all rebuttals, with “Israel” becoming a convenient synonym for “Jews.”
The difficulty here is that, while many Jews are quick to speak out against traditional anti-Semitism, the same is not true when it comes the intersection between anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric. Indeed, fueled by an experience of relative tolerance in liberal, insular, and secular bubbles, influential Jewish voices often give credence to the flawed arguments used by those who use their criticism of Israel as a mask for their hatred of Jews.
Speaking on Marc Macron’s <a href="http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1143-seth-rogen">podcast</a> this week, Seth Rogen demonstrated a stunning ignorance of Judaism’s past and present when it comes to its identity and its immutable links with Israel, and thereby provided ammunition to those who seek its destruction.
“To me it just seems an antiquated thought process. If it is for religious reasons, I don’t agree with it, because I think religion is silly,” said Rogen. “If it is for truly the preservation of Jewish people, it makes no sense, because again, you don’t keep something you’re trying to preserve all in one place — especially when that place is proven to be pretty volatile, you know? ‘I’m trying to keep all these things safe, I’m gonna put them in my blender and hope that that’s the best place . . . that’ll do it.’ It doesn’t make sense to me. And I also think that as a Jewish person I was fed a huge amount of lies about Israel my entire life! They never tell you that — oh by the way, there were people there. They make it seem like it was just like sitting there, like the f***ing door’s open. They forget to include the fact to every young Jewish person.”
There are three fundamental failures underpinning Rogen’s arguments. The first is the dismissal of the undeniable Jewish connection to Israel (which has existed for thousands of years) under the banner of an atheistic secularism which disregards the religious foundation of Judaism.
Whether individual Jews embrace the religious or the cultural aspects of their heritage is entirely up to them, but to deny the importance of Israel as the one and only everlasting home of Judaism based on one’s personal lack of religiosity is profoundly selfish and theologically inane.
The second is the use of historical revisionism which ignores that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for thousands of years. To claim that the sole purpose of Israel is “the preservation of Jewish people,” and that prior to Israel’s founding there were (other) people there, assumes the false premise that Israel was apologetically handed to Jews for the first time in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
<div id="attachment_134030" style="width: 710px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-134030" class="wp-image-134030" src="https://editorial.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Western-Wall.jpg" alt="Jewish men wearing traditional Tallit prayer shawls and clad in face masks following tightened restriction aimed at fighting the spread of the novel coronavirus, gather for the morning prayer at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, on July 27, 2020. (Photo by MENAHEM KAHANA / AFP) " width="700" height="456" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Western-Wall.jpg 741w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/07/Western-Wall-300x196.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" />Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images</div>
Such a simplistic description of Israel’s ancient and modern history only fuels the intentional attempt by those who target Jews under the “anti-Israel” guise to mislabel Israel as the result of 20th century Jewish colonialism. Contrary to this historically illiterate belief, the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was simply a recognition of reality.
Finally, the notion that dispersing Jews across the world is the answer to the everlasting threat of anti-Semitism forgets that our history of non-consensual dispersion has not exactly gone well. In addition, Rogen’s absurd blender analogy regarding the volatility of the Middle East, and that we should disperse that which we wish to protect, makes the argument that Jews should not claim what is theirs because there are those who wish to prevent them from doing so. The presence of continual mortal danger is insignificant when it comes to exercising the Jewish right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland, regardless of what the neighbors think.
Seth Rogen is utterly and completely wrong, and his arguments will be music to the ears of those who seek to destroy the Jewish State. Israel does not exist for the preservation of Jewish people. Instead, Israel exists for the preservation of Judaism, and Judaism exists for the preservation of Israel. Israel is Judaism, and Judaism is Israel, and no amount of ignorance or lazy historical revisionism will change the enduring fact that Israel is, and always will be, the enduring home of the Jewish people and of Judaism itself.  For Jews and Judaism to persist, Israel must survive.
<div>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
</div>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Seth Rogen

HAWORTH: Three Failures In Seth Rogen’s Criticism Of Israel

Anti-Semitism

Israel

The term “cancel culture” is one that has started to dominate our political discourse in recent years, growing from an irritating but innocuous freckle into an ideological tumor on the back of society. Despite the clear prevalence of its use, there is an ongoing debate regarding its fundamental meaning.
For some, cancel culture is the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html">weaponization of the masses</a> — often in the form of virtual mobs on social media — to punish thoughtcrimes or the expression of “problematic” opinions in a bid to eradicate certain viewpoints. For others, cancel culture is an imaginary term <a href="https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/">used</a> as “a catch-all for when people in power face consequences for their actions or receive any type of criticism, something that they’re not used to.”
To some extent, both positions are correct. It’s obvious to any objective onlooker that cancel culture is real. Just last year, celebrities including R. Kelly, Kanye West, Scarlett Johansson, Gina Rodriguez, Kevin Hart, and Shane Gillis all faced “cancellation” for reasons spanning from criminal acts to the utterance of subjectively offensive jokes. However, cancel culture is an equal opportunity assassin, and comes for the famous and unknown alike. For example, a teacher in Michigan was recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-teacher-fired-after-tweeting-trump-is-our-president">fired</a> after tweeting that Donald Trump is president of the United States — a simple statement of fact.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I’m done being silent. <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> is our president ❌🧢 
Don’t @ me
&mdash; Coach Kucera (@CoachKWLW) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachKWLW/status/1280312826796675074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In addition, the crosshairs of cancellation often fall on non-human elements of our culture. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and the riots that ensued, criticism of &#8220;glorifying police&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/celebrities-who-have-been-canceled-over-scandals-stances-on-protests">resulted</a> in the literal cancellation of “Cops” and “Live P.D.”
In similar fashion, HBO Max reacted to increased racial tensions by temporarily removing the classic movie “Gone With The Wind” from its streaming library and only reinstating it after providing a pedantic &#8220;trigger warning.&#8221; The fact that Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to be awarded an Academy Award for her role as “Mammy” is, unfortunately, irrelevant in the eyes of those who wield the sword of cancel culture in the battle for “progress.”
It’s also important to recognize that there is some truth to the argument that cancel culture has always existed, and is sometimes the necessary reaction to certain deplorable actions. While figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are wrong in their claim that “cancel culture comes from entitlement,” it’s difficult to argue that legitimate criminals such as Bill Cosby should be viewed with the same level of societal respect after their appalling actions are uncovered.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The term “cancel culture” comes from entitlement &#8211; as though the person complaining has the right to a large, captive audience,&amp; one is a victim if people choose to tune them out.
Odds are you’re not actually cancelled, you’re just being challenged, held accountable, or unliked.
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1281392795748569089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The issue is not whether or not cancel culture exists, but what “cancellation” should be and when it is appropriate. Earlier this month, an <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/">open letter</a> titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” was published by Harper’s Magazine. The letter was signed by dozens of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jk-rowling-over-100-others-sign-letter-condemning-cancel-culture-one-caves-apologizes-rowling-responds">academics, writers, and artists</a>,” and aimed to defend free speech and condemn cancel culture.
&#8220;We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences,&#8221; the letter reads &#8220;If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.&#8221;
This letter touched on the central issue underpinning the uncontrolled application of cancel culture: “where does the line between cancel culture and free speech exist?” We have already shown that some instances of cancel culture are absurd — such as firing teachers for stating literal facts — while some instances are understandable and, arguably, completely valid. The “<a href="https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow">Overton Window</a>” is supposed to be the lens through which we can make the distinction between the protection of free speech and the rejection of fundamentally bad ideas:
“The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.”
Unfortunately, the Overton Window has been largely hijacked. Instead of expanding or contracting, it is being shifted to the Left by the collective efforts of the establishment media, academia and progressive politicians. There still remains a significant element of the political spectrum, particularly on the Right, unrepresented by the “Harper letter.” If the ideological diversity permitted by the Overton Window is only defended by those who seek to shift it by just enough to recover their own personal respectability, then they are promoting merely a temporary stop-gap until the pressure of radical Leftism becomes too great to resist.
For now, it is clear that the Overton Window is not the answer to the question of defining the line between free speech and cancel culture. Instead, we must first agree that the misuse of cancel culture exists, and reject and debunk the flawed arguments of those who scoff at this assertion. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is applauded for stating that “People who are actually &#8216;cancelled&#8217; don’t get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets,” they must be immediately presented with a <a href="https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/tracking-cancel-culture-in-higher-education">list</a> of those who have been cancelled and, as a result, have no ability to protest.
Currently, cancel culture is either condemned, condoned, or dismissed, but usually from within ideological silos. These bubbles of thought are usually maintained through the desire to promulgate certain political positions. If cancel culture is an effective tool, then it is either celebrated or ignored. If cancel culture is a dangerous opponent, then it is adamantly denounced.
Rather than this binary approach, we need to acknowledge that the notion of “cancellation” is simply a societal tool and, like all tools, has the potential to be used in a wide array of positive and negative ways. We should also acknowledge that the act of criticism is not necessarily motivated by the desire to cancel its target. If we hope to hamper the malicious use of cancel culture while also protecting the ability to disagree, the intent behind the criticism must be our primary focus.
With this in mind, let&#8217;s reframe the discussion with intent in the equation. Here&#8217;s an analogy: Imagine that “respectable” ideological society is a single room, with a single door to an inescapable void that exists outside. Built into this door is a single mail slot. Occupants of the room carry a set of papers which contain their thoughts and ideas which they present to others in the room. Arguments are not only expected, but inevitable. Ideas which are directly opposed commonly clash, with tribes forming around common principles. As a result, it&#8217;s decided that some views are better than others, and so it&#8217;s time for this society to determine what is acceptable and may therefore remain. Ideas deemed unacceptable will be cast out into the abyss through the mail slot. Everyone is within their right to share their papers with others, and criticism of its contents is permitted, even encouraged.
The problem with our society is that we fail to notice that our “door” has a mail slot. Instead of rejecting ideas, we reject people. Those whose ideas are deemed unacceptable by an inconsistent metric of morality are cast out of the door, never to return.
This represents the fundamental difference between cancel culture and the valid use of free speech. People are separated from their ideas as those in our “room” are separated from their “papers.” If someone seeks to cast out an individual because of their ideas, then they are engaging in cancel culture. Similarly, the threat of eviction being used to silence those who wish to remain is also an example of cancel culture. The act of criticism itself is not, as long as the criticism is motivated by the desire to demonstrate the invalidity of an idea. In our analogy, this is the difference between attempting to dispose of their papers and disposing of the person themselves. If the goal is to hurl the person — along with their ideas — into the abyss, then a line has been crossed.
Of course, this analogy assumes good intent. In reality, there will be some who hope to use their ideas to enable and justify the destruction of the rights of others. There are also, of course, actual criminals, whose actions are the reason they should be rightly &#8220;cancelled.&#8221; However, permanently consigning someone to the societal void must be viewed as an absolute last resort rather than the default position, as it has increasingly become.
Until we separate the bodies, lives, and careers of those with whom we disagree from their ideas, we don’t have free speech. Until we accept that criticism is a necessary requirement for debate, we don’t have free speech.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-how-we-can-push-back-on-the-lefts-virtue-of-american-self-hatred">How We Can Push Back On The Left’s ‘Virtue’ Of American Self-Hatred</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

A front door with mail slot, doorknob and deadbolt lock

HAWORTH: The Difference Between Cancel Culture And Free Speech

Cancel culture

The legacy of both Nazi Germany and World War II has left a scar across our political and social psyche still visible to this day. Seventy-five years after Allied forces saved Europe from the bloody grasp of tyranny, we still use the crimes of the Nazis as a baseline for measuring unimaginable evil. One of the most appalling labels which can be applied to anyone in the political space is still “Nazi” or “fascist,” and such labels have become an effective arrow in the Left’s sheath of ad hominem attacks against conservatives.
In addition to the understandable horror associated with the label of Nazism or fascism, references to the Holocaust often provide the “shock factor” cherry on the Left’s cake of hyperbole. One such obscene example was provided by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-trump-running-concentration-camps-ryan-saavedra">compared</a> illegal immigrant detention centers to concentration camps.
“I want to talk to the people that are concerned enough with humanity to say that we should not that ‘Never Again’ means something and that the fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the home of the free is extraordinarily disturbing and we need to do something about it,” said the Democratic congresswoman.
Unfortunately, those who are willing to cheapen the memory of murdered Jews for political gain — even <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-faces-backlash-for-using-first-they-came-holocaust-poem-in-defense-of-omar">evoking</a> the memory of the Holocaust in an attempt to defend anti-Semites — do so from a position of both historical ignorance and moral fecklessness. While supposed “opponents” of tyranny, authoritarianism, and intolerance wring their hands while screaming “Never Again” in the faces of their enemies, they are ignoring the brutal fact that China is the Nazi Germany of not only our generation, but of the last half-century.
For months, the Chinese government have reportedly been enacting oppressive policies against its Uyghur Muslim population which have all the hallmarks of The Final Solution. When the BBC’s Andrew Marr <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53463403">confronted</a> China’s UK ambassador with authenticated footage of Uyghur Muslims being blindfolded and led to trains, Liu Xiaoming unconvincingly feigned ignorance and stated that “there is no such concentration camps in Xinjiang.”
It is alleged that up to one million Uyghur Muslims have been forcibly detained by the brutal Chinese communist government in so-called “re-education camps,” where they are subjected to forced labor, indoctrination, and sterilization.
For anyone with the slightest understanding of modern China’s political history, their shameless actions of dehumanization are nothing new. Between 1958 and 1962, Chairman Mao — one of history’s most prolific mass murderers — launched the “Great Leap Forward,” which resulted in tens of millions of deaths through starvation, beatings, torture, or suicide. Introduced in 1979 and remaining in place until 2015, the now infamous “One Child Policy” ushered in decades of appalling human rights violations, including forced abortions, sterilizations, and child abandonment.
Despite this clear and demonstrated history of a complete disregard for the value of human life, China is not viewed as the despicable geopolitical enemy they repeatedly prove themselves to be. They remain one of the five members of the United Nations Security Council, whose <a href="https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/index.html">charter</a> ironically includes the desire “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”
Unbelievably, China was even a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2019, <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12204.doc.htm">alongside</a> other supposedly human rights-promoting regimes such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. The ethical worthlessness of the United Nations Human Rights Council can be explained by <a href="https://unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/">noting</a> that between June 2006 and June 2016, 68 of its 135 resolutions singled out the Jewish State of Israel for condemnation. Not one of the 135 resolutions criticized China.
If “Never Again” means something, then we cannot remain silent as China openly enacts a <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china/report-china/">regime of tyranny</a> upon its citizens. This begins by acknowledging that the United Nations and its various councils on “security” and “human rights” are meaningless vessels of willful ignorance, and therefore understanding that we, as citizens of free nations, are responsible for standing up for the value of human life.
Those who refuse to condemn China while claiming to abhor the crimes of Nazi Germany are nothing but opportunistic cowards who are simply unwilling to stand up for what is right and fight against what is wrong. “Never Again” is utterly meaningless among those who stand silent now as Uyghur Muslims are left helpless to face a similar fate as Jews under that monstrous regime.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-5-of-bidens-most-significant-flip-flops">Biden’s 5 Most Significant Flip-Flops</a>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Uyghur Turks in Istanbul protest against China

HAWORTH: China Is Our Generation’s Nazi Germany

China

Chinese Communist Party

Holocaust

Nazi Germany

Former Vice President Joe Biden is being presented by his supporters as a return to normalcy, a response to the unorthodox tenure of the Trump administration. His plaudits describe the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as honest, trustworthy, consistent. This is demonstrably untrue. The only aspect of Biden’s political career that would be aptly described as “consistent” is his willingness to flip-flop on significant positions and principles. Here are five major issues on which Biden has reversed his position over the years.
1. Violent Crime
With race relations worsening, and sections of cities like Minneapolis and Atlanta burning to the ground in the wake of “protests,” Joe Biden has been forced to cower to the demands of the far-left Black Lives Matter organization, even if it means denying both reality and his greatest political achievement.
As ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1981, Joe Biden helped pass two bills that established <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/politics/joe-bidens-role-in-90s-crime-law-could-haunt-any-presidential-bid.html">mandatory minimums for drug offenses</a>. When he became chairman of the committee in 1987, he “told aides his goal was to enact legislation that would take a comprehensive approach to reducing crime” as the country battled with an ongoing violent crime epidemic. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law. As the <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt">largest crime bill in the history of the United States</a>, it provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs.
When Clinton was questioned on this policy in 2016, he <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/20160408_webhead_goes_here.html">responded</a> with an answer rooted in reality. &#8220;Because of that bill we had a 25-year low in crime, a 30-year low in the murder rate, and because of that and the background-check law, a 46-year low in deaths of lives by gun violence and who do you think those lives were that mattered? Whose lives were?&#8221;
However, critics of the program often reference its impact on “mass incarceration,” with the Justice Policy Institute <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act#cite_note-32">stating</a> that “the Clinton Administration&#8217;s ‘tough on crime’ policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state inmate populations of any president in American history.”
Amid the growing anti-police sentiment among the Left, Biden has chosen to abandon what is seen by many as the successful culmination of his fight against crime.
Biden, who once gave <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/joe-biden-papers-would-reveal-flip-flops-notable-policy-stances/">passionate speeches</a> on the Senate floor arguing that one could be a “progressive” and “lock the SOBs up” now states that it was a “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-apologizes-for-pushing-hardline-laws-on-crime-immigration-in-1990s-2019-1">big mistake when it was made</a>.”
To double down on his rejection of the bill and instead signal his fealty to the demands of the woke Left, Biden has recently <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-white-america-admit-systemic-racism/story?id=60524966">deflected</a> criticism for his role, stating that “There&#8217;s something we have to admit – not you – we, white America, has to admit, there&#8217;s still a systematic racism and it goes almost unnoticed by so many of us.”
For some reason, the fact that Biden helped build this system during his more than three decades-long senatorial career then failed to address it in a meaningful way during his 8 years as vice president goes “unnoticed” by his supporters.
2. China
One of the pillars of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, both as a candidate and as President, has been to rail against the threat posed by China.
In June of 2019, Biden <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-flip-flopping-key-policy-issues-2019-6">appeared to agree</a> with Trump’s general assessment, while simultaneously repackaging Trump’s very criticism as having provoked such tensions. (We should note that this flawed cyclic logic is being used as we speak to condemn Trump’s use of federal officers to quell the explosion of violence across the country.)
&#8220;We are in a competition with China. We need to get tough with China,” said Biden. “They are a serious challenge to us, and in some areas a real threat. And every single step that Donald Trump is taking is only exacerbating the challenge. While Trump is tweeting, China is making massive investments in technologies of the future. While Trump is name-calling, China is building roads, bridges, and high-speed rail. While Trump is pursuing a damaging and erratic trade war, without any real strategy, China is positioning itself to lead the world in renewable energy. While Trump is attacking our friends, China is pressing its advantage all over the world. So you bet I&#8217;m worried about China — if we keep following Trump&#8217;s path.&#8221;
Such sudden and vocal concern would shock anyone who heard Biden speak on the same subject just a few weeks earlier.
&#8220;China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” he said. “They can&#8217;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 the west. They can&#8217;t figure out how they&#8217;re going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. They&#8217;re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They&#8217;re not competition for us.&#8221;
For Biden, his inconsistent position regarding the United States’ most formidable enemy is deeply troubling, further plagued by accusations of impropriety regarding the business dealings of his unscrupulous son Hunter.
It’s one thing to have a bad foreign policy. It’s another to have two foreign policies.
3. Abortion
For decades, Biden voted in what would now be considered an anti-abortion manner.
In 1976 Joe Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of federal funds for abortion in almost all cases. He then <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00295">voted to save it</a> in 1993. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1981 still contains a “<a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41360.pdf">Biden amendment</a>” which was <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/joe-biden-papers-would-reveal-flip-flops-notable-policy-stances/">added</a> “to ban American aid from being used in research related to abortions.” Biden advocated for the ability of states to overturn Roe vs. Wade, was in favor of the “Mexico City policy,” which prevented federal funds from being allocated to organizations which provided or expanded abortion services, and has voted for partial-birth abortion bans on two occasions.
With the dystopian celebration of abortion built into the foundation of the modern Democratic platform, the Joe Biden of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s could never survive.
Aiming to pivot on the definition and value of life, Biden offered this <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/6/22/18713603/joe-biden-hyde-amendment">vapid explanation</a> for his decision to oppose the Hyde Amendment at a Planned Parenthood event in 2019.
“I laid out a health care plan that’s going to provide federally funded health care for all women and women who now are denied even Medicare in their home states,” he explained. “It became really clear to me that although the Hyde Amendment was designed to try to split the difference here, to make sure women still had access, you can’t have access if everyone’s covered by a federal policy. That’s why at the same time I announced that policy, I announced that I could no longer continue to abide by the Hyde Amendment. That’s the reason.”
<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/22/biden-roe-v-wade-2020-1376712">During that same event</a>, Biden stated that he would work to “enshrine into federal law the Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision upholding abortion rights” — a verdict he had <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/28/progressives-biden-moved-left/">described</a> as “wrongly decided” in 1973, and that “went too far” in 1974.
When it comes to the subject of abortion, Biden’s history of opposition is as clear as the Left’s uncompromising attitude towards the “human right” to take the lives of unborn humans. This leaves him with no option but to answer questions on his clear “mixed record” with his trademark <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7170569/Biden-defends-record-womens-issues-flip-flop-Hyde-Amendment.html">confused vagary</a>. “First of all, I’m not sure about the &#8216;mixed record&#8217; part.”
4. Gay Marriage
When Biden discusses the subject of gay rights, we are often told <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/joe-biden-gay-marriage-equality">the story</a> of his father explaining that “Joey, it’s simple. They love each other” after the teenage Joe witnessed two men kissing in public. However, this sweet yet overly simplistic story is often used as a cover for a far more complicated history.
Speaking to a gay activist in 1973, Biden <a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/53510488/the-morning-news/">stated</a>, “My gut reaction is that they (homosexuals) are security risks but I must admit I haven’t given this much thought&#8230;I’ll be darned!”
In 1994, Biden voted to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/02/us/senate-backs-cuts-for-schools-that-endorse-homosexuality.html">cut off funding</a> for schools which taught the acceptance of homosexuality, and in 1996, Biden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/us/politics/biden-gay-rights-lgbt.html">voted in favor</a> of the Defense of Marriage Act, which blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages. As recently as 2006, Joe Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/06/19/biden-opposes-same-sex-marriage-in-2006-clip-blasted-out-by-trump-campaign/">confirmed his position</a> that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Just a few years later, Biden was lauded for his “evolution” on the subject of gay rights when he appeared to go against the Obama administration by expressing that he was “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/joe-bidens-gay-marriage-slip-up">comfortable</a>” with same-sex marriage.
“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights,” he said. “All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”
One must ask why, if Biden’s father was right in saying that “it’s simple,” he waited until the Democratic Party chose to institute a monumental shift and fully embraced the umbrella of issues beneath the LGBTQ+ banner to change his mind. Perhaps his other statement, “I haven’t given this much thought&#8230;I’ll be darned!” is more fitting?
5. Believe Women
Biden perfectly encapsulates the sporadic hypocrisy of the #MeToo movement. When Brett Kavanaugh was accused of multiple sexual assaults in 2016, memories of Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings in 1991 resurfaced.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html">During that time</a>, Biden led an “all-white, all-male Judiciary Committee” as Anita Hill “was grilled in excruciatingly graphic detail.”
Years later, bending to the demands of the #MeToo movement in the aftermath of Justice Kavanaugh’s eerily similar confirmation, Biden sought to erase his involvement in Hill’s questioning by offering an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html">apology</a>.
In 2019, when questioned on whether he believed Hill’s claims, Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-when-a-woman-alleges-sexual-assault-presume-she-is-telling-the-truth/2018/09/17/7718c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html">pandered</a> to the absurd demand that we must “Believe All Women.”
“Oh, I thought she was telling the truth at the beginning. I really did,” said Biden. “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
Oddly, when Tara Reade — a woman — jumped into a “cauldron” lit by the “glaring lights of focus” during a national presidential battle in March 2020 and accused Biden of sexual assault, she wasn’t believed.
Rejecting the presumption of truthfulness demanded by Biden, he personally <a href="https://apnews.com/2cf920b470ab3bad516b077689a9a085">denied</a> the allegations, stating that “it never, never happened.”
Biden is not the first, and presumably won’t be the last, Democrat to be accused of sexual assault. He may be guilty. He may be innocent. What we do know, however, is that when a politician like Biden utters ridiculous phrases like “Believe Women,” he won’t play by his own rules.
***
Biden believes that China is a harmless threat. Biden believes that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided but should also be codified into law. Biden believes that homosexuals are security risks who should have the right to marry. Biden believes that we should &#8220;lock the SOBs up&#8221; and that incarceration is evidence of &#8220;systemic racism.&#8221; Finally, Joe Biden believes some women. Pro-Biden politicos and media attempt to portray Biden as consistent, honest, and reliable to the American people. His record tells quite a different story.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-what-herd-immunity-teaches-us-about-freedom">What ‘Herd Immunity’ Teaches Us About Freedom</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

HAWORTH: Biden’s 5 Most Significant Flip-Flops

Abortion

Crime

LGBT

MeToo

Sometimes it feels like there are too many COVID-19 catchphrases swirling around these days. While some are unique to these unprecedented times, such as “flatten the curve,” or are being used uniquely, like “the new normal,” there is one term that most are at least tangentially aware of: “herd immunity.” In recent times, “herd immunity” has become the latest milestone we must strive for in order to “return to normal,” if there is such a thing.
According to the <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808">Mayo Clinic</a>, “herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community (the herd) becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. As a result, the whole community becomes protected — not just those who are immune.” If a sufficient number of people are “immune,” then the chain of disease transmission is interrupted, drastically reducing its prevalence. The percentage of a community required to provide herd immunity varies based on how contagious the disease is, with a highly contagious virus such as the measles requiring an estimated 94% coverage for “herd immunity” to be achieved.
When it comes to COVID-19, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/21/coronavirus-swedish-herd-immunity-drove-up-death-toll-column/5472100002/">scientists have yet to determine</a> the percentage required to reach “herd immunity,” or even if such an objective is even possible. Stepping back from this specific illness, however, there is cause for concern when it comes to communal protections against other more familiar diseases. In 2000, the measles was declared eliminated in the United States, but due to reduced vaccine coverage, we are now seeing a resurgence of this previously eradicated and potentially deadly disease. As the percentage of immune individuals decreases, the risk of transmission and infection is increased for those we are unvaccinated for valid or invalid reasons, as well as those left vulnerable by a vaccine that is not 100% effective.
Much of this vaccine skepticism is driven by the anti-vaccine movement, known colloquially as “anti-vaxxers.” In addition to arguments disputing the medical consensus that vaccines are both safe and effective, the prevailing argument in favor of the rejection of vaccines is based on the principle of individual freedom. The same reasoning is applied to other related debates, such as the refusal to wear masks in public spaces. What we must realize is that this attitude of pertinacious individualism reaches far beyond such specific debates over vaccines or COVID-19, having a deeper impact on our society at large.
In fact, the general concept of herd immunity applies to every collective aspect of our lives. When we boil down the mathematical structure of herd immunity, we reach the concept of communal protection. Beyond “safety in numbers,” we have multiple societal structures in place where some form of majority protects a more vulnerable minority. If enough people are willing to act in the interests of both themselves and their neighbors, then the community as a whole is acting in the interests of its members. However, just as with herd immunity, this means a line exists that defines the tipping point between enough people and too few people.
The analogy that best describes this societal concept is the recognizable image of military “log drills,” where the full weight of a large log is distributed among multiple team members. Naturally, some members will be stronger or taller than others, meaning that the evenly distributed weight may be supported unevenly. Despite natural inequalities, this inherent unfairness is ignored in favor of achieving a common goal. Now, what happens if one recruit chooses to quit, or collapses from physical exhaustion? In all likelihood, those remaining will be able to burden the additional weight. However, what if multiple recruits buckle? Unless the log is absurdly light, or one recruit is abnormally strong, there is a point where too few recruits remain, leaving an unfortunate few to be crushed beneath its weight.
On a simple level, this not only describes herd immunity in the context of fighting disease, but also the notion of herd immunity regarding societal issues and concerns. Whether we imagine the log as a government entitlement program, vaccine requirement for schools, or speed limit legislation, the logic remains the same: a tipping point exists where society can no longer support the weight of its burden. Taking government entitlements as an example, it is mathematically impossible to shoulder the financial load of any program if the supply of its benefactors is overwhelmed by the demand of its beneficiaries.
While this ideological flaw exists on both sides of the aisle, the justifications are quite opposite in nature. The Left generally places more value in collectivism than individualism, and so the notion of individual liberty goes unacknowledged in the supposed quest for societal perfection. As a result, their failure is rooted in the conflation of “negative rights” with “positive rights,” and the dismissal of the finiteness of resources. This intellectual dishonesty is what allows proposals such as the “Green New Deal,” “Medicare for All”, or student debt “forgiveness” to be taken seriously.
In the context of our “log drill” analogy, the Left sees no problem with simultaneously increasing the weight of the log by encouraging recruits to cease holding it aloft and instead mount the log in honor of their human right to comfortable seating. The Right reaches the same conclusion through the logic of individualism. Regardless of what the “log” represents, every recruit has the unalienable right to exert their freedom and decide not to bear its weight. Ultimately, whether through individualism or collectivism, the log will eventually crush the few who are left to support it.
In order for conservatives to combat this issue, we must understand two important factors that have been ignored. The first is the failure to acknowledge that responsibility is a necessary partner to freedom. The second is the failure to acknowledge that individual freedom must be protected while accepting that the rights of others are equally (and in some cases, more) valid. As individuals, freedom without responsibility results in anarchy. As individuals, the complete disregard for the rights of others results in the cyclic destruction of individual rights. Our duty is to find balance, and the debate over vaccine mandates presents an example of such a struggle. While individuals are within their rights to refuse vaccines for themselves or their children, does this right include forcing others to be exposed to the consequences of their decisions? The answer, if you value the individual freedoms of others as well as yourself, is no.
Like most philosophical and ideological debates, the devil is in the details. Where does this line between individual freedom and its impact on other individuals exist? For example, where does this line exist between legislating against all “uncomfortable” or “problematic” language and enabling the direct incitement of violence against individuals or groups? Where does this line exist between the destruction of the Second Amendment with the forceful confiscation of every firearm and the legalization of privately owned weapons of mass destruction? Where does this line exist between the celebration of abortion at any gestational age and the refusal to provide chemotherapy or radiotherapy to pregnant mothers with cancer?
It is important that conservatives acknowledge and embrace the lesson provided by analyzing the concept of herd immunity on a societal level, and appreciate that freedom and responsibility are the two pillars needed to uphold our ideology. With that in mind, some must change course from an increasingly relentless libertarianism that embraces one individual over another. Instead, we should accept this intellectual challenge and see every issue in the context of herd immunity by working to define the “line” that divides the freedom of one and the freedom of another.
Through that lens, conservatism can grow. Through the lens of selfish, stubborn, and uncompromising individualism, it will collapse.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/haworth-how-we-can-push-back-on-the-lefts-virtue-of-american-self-hatred">How We Can Push Back On The Left’s ‘Virtue’ Of American Self-Hatred</a>
<div>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
</div>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Man Wearing Mask With American Flag

HAWORTH: What ‘Herd Immunity’ Teaches Us About Freedom

Constitution

Freedom

During the past few decades, enthusiasm for multiculturalism has resulted in the view that diversity is our greatest strength. Fueled by the widespread acceptance and enforcement of intersectionality, those who are members of a minority “identity group” are societally required to celebrate their “culture,” regardless of whether or not their identity group even has an associated culture. With multiple groups defined by race, sexual orientation, or religion, the notion of “pride” is often actively encouraged. In many ways, this is an objective good. Pride in your heritage, or the progress made by a group close to your heart, is something we should all support.
However, this uncovers a strange juxtaposition when it comes to the moral judgement of pride depending on one’s identity, demonstrated by the treatment of “gay pride” versus “straight pride,” “black pride” versus “white pride,” and women’s marches versus men’s marches. This same binary attitude is also applied to the cultures of the past, with the growing consensus amongst “progressives” being that we can judge bygone generations solely by their position in the world hierarchy through the lens of “colonialism.” This leads to the same simplistic characterizations of morality we see today. Colonialist cultures were “bad,” and the cultures they “victimized” were therefore “good.”
Admittedly, one legitimate criticism of some forms of “cultural pride” is that they are rooted in the desire to present a “counter protest.” “If they can celebrate gay pride, why can’t I celebrate straight pride?” “Why can’t I celebrate being white if someone else can celebrate being black?” “If she’s proud to be a woman, why can’t I be proud of being a man?” The error here is the assumed premise that the celebration of “pride” is skin deep. In reality, most are not celebrating the minority label, but the historical context of that label. Unfortunately, instead of taking this nuanced and empathetic position, the alternative to such “counter protests” if you are a member of a non-minority group is enthusiastic cultural self-flagellation.
In this case, you are required to demonstrate deep shame for your immutable membership to your identity group if that identity group is viewed as a historical “victimizer,” while also celebrating the cultures of anyone who is viewed as historically “victimized.” In the eyes of genuine conservatives, such labels are absurd. In a battle to reject every element of identity politics and intersectionality, combined with the understandable discomfort often elicited by such discussions, the subject of whether cultural pride is appropriate is often abandoned by the mainstream Right, leaving the remaining radical (and often racist) fragments to provide any counter narrative.
By relinquishing this subject, conservatives have provided the Left with the ammunition required to label any criticism of their cultural demands as motivated entirely by bigotry. Phrases such as “western culture” or “Judeo-Christian values” have been allowed to become synonymous with the racially charged and ideologically meaningless terms “white culture” or “European values.” Under this umbrella of presumed bigotry, even mentioning the term “Judeo-Christian values” is dismissed as a racist dog whistle without question.
The problem underlying this false conflation is the immeasurable difference between the former and the latter. Western culture is a collection of beliefs, political structures, and societal ethics which grew from an amalgamation of Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultures. Western culture, and the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultures which underpin it, is a concrete set of such ideals which allow it to be differentiated from other cultures and civilizations. This is not a statement of moral judgement, but a statement of simple fact. Conversely, the phrases “white culture” or “European values” hijack the notion of Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman cultures by literally whitewashing them in order to make an implicit or explicit claim of racial ownership. By making the objectively true claim that western civilization has been the foundation for the proliferation of historically unimaginable peace, prosperity, and liberty, they make the illogical assumption that such successes are evidence of “whiteness,” and therefore “white supremacy.” The fact that the biblical Jews who gave us the “Judeo” in “Judeo-Christian” were neither white nor European is conveniently ignored.
It is crucially important that mainstream conservatives reclaim this subject of debate from the radical wings of the American Right. Firstly, this must be done in order to fight back against the false argument that “western culture” is “white culture.”  While the Left routinely wield the sword of “racial justice” in their sporadic fight against racism, any form of bigotry is entirely antithetical to the fundamental concepts of individualism on which conservatism is built. As such, it is our duty to reject the deplorable claim of white exceptionalism which assumes that the success of western culture was not founded on an ideology, but on skin color.
Conservatives must also return to the field on this subject because western culture — and in our case the culture of freedom and liberty provided by the words of The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and The Bill of Rights — is worth defending. By permitting western culture to be intentionally or unintentionally unified under the banner of “white” or “European” dominance, we are opening the door to the intentional or unintentional destruction of our unique system of rights as collateral damage in the fight against bigotry.
We have a historical responsibility to protect the unbelievable privilege bestowed upon us by generations past. While countless people across history have lived lives of unthinkable suffering under relentless tyranny, we stand as free men and free women. While these rights are given to us by God, history is riddled with evidence that such liberty is far from guaranteed. The fact is that some cultures are different, and some are better than others. Those who disagree and claim that this is simply a “racist dog-whistle” should explain how the combination of cultures under the shared embracement of American values is no better than that of primitive cannibalistic societies, brutal totalitarian regimes under communist dictators, or ISIS.
The answer here is not the dismissal of pride, but its proper application. We must recognize that pride in one’s heritage or background is not the same as the assumption of one’s supremacy over other comparable groups. Gay Pride, for example, is a celebration of the remarkable strides made by the gay rights movement in recent history. The proper application of pride involves the recognition of the positive elements of our culture and history which we wish to embrace, protect, and nurture. It also involves the continued recognition of the multiple wrongs of the past, and the ongoing pursuit of ideological betterment and societal development.
With that in mind, there is no reason why pride in our western culture should be viewed as evidence of bigotry. Instead, we should celebrate that we are fortunate to live in a time and place where we can live together and celebrate our differences under a shared mission of promoting liberty and justice.
That is western culture. That is why we should be proud of it.
<div>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
</div>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Protests on Fourth of July in Los Angeles

HAWORTH: How We Can Push Back On The Left’s ‘Virtue’ Of American Self-Hatred

American History

Patriotism

Progressivism

The vast majority of us know who Adolf Hitler was. Even with the slightest level of historical understanding, we know that he was an evil man with an evil ideology responsible for millions of deaths. As a result, anyone who is accused of holding even a fraction of Hitler’s political views is judged with an understandable level of scorn, and those who openly align themselves with such an ideology are rightly exiled from mainstream society.
This is an easy position to understand. After all, one only has to look at the unimaginable violence ushered in by the totalitarian fascism of Nazi Germany to know that such an ideology is based on entirely immoral principles. However, if death tolls mean that Nazism, fascism, and white supremacy are evil ideologies, why is the same basic logic not applied to the politics of the far Left?
Under the ruthless communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union alone, according to the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810">Wall Street Journal</a>, “victims include 200,000 killed during the Red Terror (1918-22); 11 million dead from famine and dekulakization; 700,000 executed during the Great Terror (1937-38); 400,000 more executed between 1929 and 1953; 1.6 million dead during forced population transfers; and a minimum 2.7 million dead in the Gulag, labor colonies and special settlements.”
After the murder of at least 16,600,000 civilians, surely those with even a tangential connection to this regime would be wholeheartedly rejected by a political party who claim to advocate for peace and tolerance? Quite the opposite! Bernie Sanders, who has praised dictators and leftist regimes on multiple occasions – and even <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6989969/Topless-Sanders-banqueting-Soviet-Union-attacked-U-S-foreign-interventions.html">spent his honeymoon</a> in the Soviet Union – now leads the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party, which represents the party base.
If we take other communist and socialist regimes into account, including China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and Venezuela, the estimated death count rockets to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=H1jsgYCoRioC">almost 100 million people</a>. This number is more than five times greater than that of Nazi Germany, and yet the continued promulgation of the politics of communism, socialism, and Marxism is permitted in a way that would be (thankfully) unimaginable if it were applied to Nazism or fascism.
The shocking acceptance of radical Leftism simply must end if we hope to prevent continued damage in the wake of this evil ideology. When politicians such as Bernie Sanders praise or effectively apologize for the actions of murderous dictators, they should be cast out of polite society with the same fervor as if someone said, “Hitler may have killed lots of Jews, but the roads sure were pretty!”
Sanders <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-florida.html">said</a>: “When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”
This problem exists even at the pinnacle of American Leftism. The fact that a potential vice presidential candidate survived <a href="https://youtu.be/t8ZWtqIzmQI">refusing to reject Marxism</a> – while offering a disingenuous apology for praising Fidel Castro – should terrify anyone who values freedom and liberty.
The number of graves beneath history’s bloodthirsty communist and socialist regimes is staggering.
Had it not been for the United States, these numbers would have continued to rise as radical Leftism spread across the globe. The United States must continue to stand as the world’s greatest single force against totalitarianism and tyranny. This crucial moral battle will become impossible if we continue to allow these ideologies to fester within our borders.
<div>
Ian G. Haworth is a conservative commentator who provides an honest, principled, and hard-hitting insight into our politics and culture from his unique perspective as a British immigrant to the United States. Ian hosts “The Ian Haworth Show” and “The Truth in 60 Seconds.” He is a regular columnist for Townhall.com, and his work has appeared in other outlets including The American Mind, The Washington Examiner, and The Federalist. Ian graduated from Oxford University, and now lives in California. Follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>
</div>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers with the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Hammer and sickle

HAWORTH: The Deadly Double Standard Of Communism Vs. Fascism

Bernie Sanders

Communism

Fascism

Marxism

Despite repeatedly stating that the United Kingdom would fulfill the democratic decision of the British people and leave the European Union on October 31st, Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have become the latest victim of the combined weight of internal British political sabotage and a monolithic European bureaucracy.
When Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal (No. 2) Act, known as the “Benn Act,” Boris Johnson’s government was forced to work to stop a “no-deal Brexit” on October 31st. Earlier today, as the latest departure date loomed, European leaders agreed to yet another extension — this time to January 31st, 2020.
EU Council President Donald Tusk ironically dubbed this a “flextension” (because seemingly every Brexit-related failure deserves its own portmanteau), stating that the United Kingdom could leave before this ever-expanding deadline if the British Parliament were to approve a Brexit deal. However, the likelihood of reaching such agreement is absurdly small, given that Parliament has voted to reject every deal put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and her successor, Boris Johnson.
In an attempt to break this mind-numbing deadlock, Boris Johnson has been calling for a general election in a bid to consolidate more support in Parliament for some form of departure from the European Union. After calling for a general election for several years, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50205603">scuppered every attempt to actually hold such an election</a>. This leaves the United Kingdom in a perpetual state of inaction and, more importantly, as a continued member of the European Union.
While Brexit might seem complicated, it is actually depressingly simple. The European Union and the British political class are now conspiring to ignore the voice of the British people and, as a result, are rejecting the fundamental premise of democracy itself. It should also be noted that, while they are intentionally failing in their governmental duties, the elite British political class is applying a careful combination of strategies in order to achieve its goal of remaining subjugant to the unchecked, faceless, and widely undemocratic web of European bureaucracy.
The European Union, like any other pseudo-authoritarian system, works along a different timeline than does the voting population. During any form of democratic process, voters are constantly presented with choices which are promised to result in immediate or short-term impact. The Brexit referendum of 2016 was no different. After waiting over three years for any progress, the British population is unsurprisingly frustrated with the continued failure of the political class.
As frustration grows, apathy will also grow regarding the type of Brexit that is achieved. Achieving any form of change becomes more attractive than the continued failure to deliver the original objective. As apathy grows, the voices of those calling for a so-called “people’s vote,” or even the open rejection of Brexit itself, become more legitimate. Such frustration and apathy is being leveraged with the goal of erasing Brexit from the pages of history.
The legacy of British democracy is languishing due to the crushing refusal to respect the voice of the British populace. Every delay to Brexit is another rejection of the foundational expectation of basic democracy, where the result of a vote is implemented as directed by the majority of the population. We should pray that neither apathy nor frustration, fueled by an elitist political class that holds little respect for its duty as elected representatives, results in an ultimate capitulation to the European Union.
If the British government fails to deliver Brexit — whether through a “no-deal” departure or a withdrawal agreement that achieves true sovereignty for the United Kingdom — then democracy will have died in the U.K. It won’t die with violence. It’ll die with an exhausted sigh, as the very spirit of Britain collapses between the determined claws of the European Union.

Boris Johnson

HAWORTH: Brexit Delay Signals The Death Of British Democracy

Brexit

Great Britain

United Kingdom

The ongoing saga that is Brexit may seem distant to some of us here in the United States. News of the latest British capitulation to the ever-expanding political monolith that is the European Union sporadically trickles across our airwaves, but soon crumbles beneath the weight of a frantic news cycle. However, what’s currently unfolding in the United Kingdom should require the attention of everyone who values freedom and fears the creeping threat of authoritarianism.
As the most recent departure date from the E.U. of October 31st fast approached, it seemed like the slog towards Brexit was almost complete. Unfortunately, there has been a continued attempt to undermine the referendum result at every stage by a class of globalist political elites, buoyed by a vocal and petulant minority that has refused to accept reality. Sound familiar?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the most recent occupant of the seemingly cursed No. 10 Downing Street, was defeated twice by the House of Commons this week. The first defeat came after opposition members of Parliament (MPs) and Conservative Party rebels <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">voted 327 to </a><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">299</a> in favor of a bill that would block a no-deal Brexit. If passed, Boris Johnson would be forced to “ask” the European Union for yet another deal negotiation extension beyond October 31st. In response, Johnson attempted to push for a new general election, but <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907">MPs turned down his motion</a> — with Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn stating that his party would support Johnson’s call for a new general election once the bill blocking a no-deal Brexit passed.
Now, it is fair to argue that binary referenda aren’t the most effective or positive way of achieving policy changes in a representative democracy. They enable the political evasion of responsibility by punting impactful decisions to the populace, with politicians claiming credit for success and blaming the public for failure. They are also divisive by definition, with the societal impact of Brexit often compared to the vicious aftermath of the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. Regardless, the very foundation of a democratic system is that the decisions made by the voters are respected by those who have been elected as their representatives. The referendum result of June 23rd, 2016 was clear, with 17.4 million people voting to leave the European Union — a gargantuan bureaucracy that has grown far beyond the economic-centric “European Community” that Britons had supported in their last relevant referendum of 1975.
Despite it being a duty bestowed upon the British political class to act in accordance with the will of the people, every method of satisfactory departure from the European Union has been intentionally blockaded by those who have no respect for the referendum result — or for democracy itself. As a final insult, the refusal to hold a general election before officially preventing a no-deal Brexit is simply an attempt to delay Brexit indefinitely.
The reason for this is that “no-deal” is the only remaining way for Britain to leave the E.U. The only deal supported by the E.U. is the disastrous “Withdrawal Agreement” negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May, which has been rejected on multiple occasions by the House of Commons. With a no-deal Brexit taken off the table, we are left with two equally unacceptable outcomes.
<ol>
<li>Without facing the threat of crashing out of the E.U., the prime minister will be handed the impossible task of negotiating with the European Union without any meaningful leverage. This will mean that the E.U. can keep the U.K. trapped as the parties fail to negotiate, forcing Britain to beg for extension after extension. Result: U.K. stays in the E.U.</li>
<li>As the deadly combination of impatience and apathy grows among the British public, the government will finally adopt Theresa May’s absurd “Withdrawal Agreement” out of an exhausted desire to “do something” and escape the never-ending chaos of Brexit. Result: U.K. effectively stays in the E.U.</li>
</ol>
Because “no-deal” is the only way that the United Kingdom will ever achieve the result demanded by its 2016 national referendum, it is the final obstacle for hordes of “Remainers” who have decreed a “no-deal” Brexit an apocalyptic disaster that must be avoided at all costs. Combined with the refusal of many politicians who support “no-deal” to respect the intelligence and resilience of the British public by acknowledging the non-disastrous but realistically negative impact of “no-deal,” “no-deal” supporters are seemingly handing the reins of control to the minority. As a result, the only exit from the bureaucratic maze of perpetual servitude to the E.U. is being closed. When this door closes, these politicians may have achieved their desired result, but they will have failed to honor the fundamental principles of democracy.
There are multiple similarities between the societal impact of Brexit and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As we approach another election in 2020, Brexit should stand as a warning to the threats of those in the U.S. who hope to undermine democracy. We must remember that politicians, at their core, are our servants.
If we allow ourselves to forget that elected officials work for us, then we will enable a growing class of opportunistic politicians who seek to tighten their authoritarian grip on our lives. Brexit is forcefully revealing the true nature of many such politicians. With that in mind, if you care about liberty, then you must care about Brexit.

BRITAIN-EU-POLITICS-BREXIT-DEMONSTRATION

HAWORTH: Americans Must See The Brexit Betrayal As A Warning

Democracy

Europe

European Union

Tisha B’Av — the ninth of Av — is the saddest day on the Jewish calendar. Traditionally, observant Jews fast and deprive themselves while they pray and remember various major catastrophes in Jewish history. Over time, other calamities have been mourned, including the Nazi Party’s formal approval of “The Final Solution” on Av 9, AM 5701, and the start of the mass deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka one year later. For many, Tisha B’Av is a time of mourning for the Holocaust as a whole.
On Tisha B’Av of all days, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/in-dc-new-york-and-beyond-jews-mark-annual-day-of-mourning-by-protesting-trump-immigration-policies/2019/08/11/16975ec2-bc70-11e9-b873-63ace636af08_story.html">thousands of leftist American Jews staged protests across the country</a> against ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
For some time, the Holocaust has been used as a comparative metric in order to condemn the implementation of existing immigration laws. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48556/ocasio-cortez-says-concentration-camp-comments-not-ryan-saavedra">famously likened detention facilities to concentration camps</a> and referenced the phrase “Never Again” — synonymous with Holocaust remembrance. The same phrase adorned T-shirts and signs at the protests on Sunday, with the hashtag #JewsAgainstICE going viral.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s weaponization of Jewish tragedy is an example of the uninformed and offensive rhetoric that we have come to expect from the New York congresswoman. However, when the incomparable catastrophe that was the Holocaust is weaponized by leftist Jews in a bid to peddle Democratic talking points, we have moved beyond casual political ignorance and into the realm of deliberate historical destruction.
To compare the Holocaust, or even the preliminary events of the Holocaust, to the treatment of illegal immigrants in the United States is an act of supreme benightedness. The Holocaust began with the systematic dehumanization of Jews through broad and increasingly aggressive government policies. Synagogues were burnt, Jewish businesses looted, and Jews publicly beaten. Then came the summary executions, with Jews murdered like animals in the streets. Jewish citizens were forced to leave their homes and abandon their property. They were crowded into ghettos, where starvation and disease ran rampant.
In their ultimate desire for murderous efficiency, the Nazis then rounded Jews into death camps. Some Jews were worked to death as slave laborers. Those who didn’t serve an immediate economic purpose had their heads shaved, were stripped of their clothes, and were crowded into air-tight rooms. After poison gas was released, their final minutes were spent in agony, surrounded by petrifying darkness. After every person had perished, their bodies were collected. Any remaining valuable items (such as gold teeth) were removed before the bodies were burned to ash.
This is the raw truth of the Holocaust, the darkest moment in our people’s history.
It is more than reasonable to criticize the Trump administration’s immigration policies, abhor the alleged mistreatment of children, or present differences of opinion regarding border security. However, for anyone to compare any element of American immigration policy to that of the Holocaust is as despicable as it is ignorant. For leftist American Jews, it is an act of historical betrayal.
With each new viral hashtag, we are reminded of the increasingly ideological self-ghettoization of some secular American Jews who are willing to actively rewrite our history in a bid to support a leftist narrative. Jewish groups who parroted #IStandWithIlhan ignored the fact that Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric was taken straight from Joseph Goebbels’ playbook. Those who applaud #JewsForPalestine reject the fact that so-called “Palestine” is led by organizations who hope to emulate Nazi Germany in their attempt to destroy the Jewish people. Ultimately, #JewsAgainstICE is indicative of those who are willing to allow their own political party to build irrelevant ideological arguments on the graves of 6,000,000 murdered Jews.
With every absurd tweet, every bastardization of the phrase “Never Again,” and every false comparison of ICE to the Nazis, the memory of the Jews who were slaughtered during the Holocaust grows ever fainter. If such abject ignorance is allowed to spread, the dangers of virulent anti-Semitism will be forgotten, and no number of viral hashtags will protect Jews from the inevitable result.
Never Again.

Jerusalem

HAWORTH: Leftist Jews’ Weaponization Of The Holocaust On Tisha B’Av Is An Act Of Historical Betrayal

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ilhan Omar

Judaism

Nazis

In the aftermath of several recent mass shootings, many Democrats have repeatedly labeled President Donald Trump as a “white nationalist” or a “white supremacist.” Beto O’Rourke <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/456158-orourke-compares-trump-administration-to-nazi-germany">likened his rhetoric to that of the Third Reich</a>, and this viewpoint is shared across much of the Democratic Party.
While the terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist” are applied increasingly liberally, it seems important to remind ourselves of the definitions of these ideologies before making such accusations.
<ul>
<li>White nationalism is based upon the belief of a “white race” and the development of a white national identity.</li>
<li>White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other races.</li>
<li>Both ideologies have racism running at their very core — usually including unabashed hatred of Jews and racial minorities.</li>
</ul>
After some of Trump’s rhetoric was defined as racist or xenophobic by critics, his detractors on the Left saw one short goose-step between subjective criticism and invalid accusations of white supremacy or white nationalism. However, the fact that Trump is white and has been labeled as a racist is obviously insufficient evidence of “white nationalistic” ideology.
Those who blindly criticize Donald Trump as a white supremacist are doing so from a position of ignorance or cynicism. In both cases, they should be forced to provide justification beyond merely claiming that “Trump is racist.” After all, as children, we are taught basic logical principles. One example is that “all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.” Even if Trump were racist (and there is no evidence that he is), we must still remember that “all white supremacists are racist, but not all racists are white supremacists.”
One clear counter-argument to the lazy accusations leveled against Trump is the fact that targeted hatred and subjugation of Jews and black people is a core underlying principle of white supremacist ideology. With this in mind, it seems that Trump would be appallingly bad at being a white supremacist. Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism, he has a town named after him in the Jewish state of Israel, and black unemployment is at its <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000006">lowest rate on record</a>. In addition, the claim that Trump reserves certain acerbic language — such as “infestation” — for racial minorities is a lie. For example, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50012/selective-outrage-media-trump-also-called-new-ashe-schow">Trump called New Hampshire</a> a “drug-infested den.” New Hampshire is 93.9% white.
Instead of accepting these realities, the common response is to pivot to the claim that Trump is a white supremacist because he is supported by some fringe white supremacists. This is based upon yet another logical fallacy called “guilt by association,” whereby guilt is assigned based on some irrelevant association or shared attribute. For example: “You have black hair. Hitler had black hair. Therefore, you are Hitler.”
While criticisms of Trump’s presidential campaign can arguably be made regarding instances of pandering to the alt-right, neither Trump’s rhetoric nor his actions in office provide any substantive proof to suggest that he is a white supremacist. The fact that some white supremacists support Trump is evidence — at the very most — that they share some perceived or actual common viewpoints. However, this is only relevant if the shared policies are elements of the white supremacist ideology — and there is no evidence of this.
In addition, it is glaringly obvious that support alone does not indicate a completely shared ideology. After Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) anti-Semitic tweets implying that Israel had “hypnotized the world,” David Duke, a former “Grand Wizard” of the Klu Klux Klan, <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/david-duke-praises-rep-ilhan-omar/">came out in support of Omar</a>.
Following the Left’s logic, Ilhan Omar is a white supremacist and supports the Klu Klux Klan. While much of Ilhan Omar’s ideology is utterly detestable, this is clearly an absurd assertion. Indeed, if the vocal support of one white supremacist were all that were needed to condemn a politician, all members of the Klu Klux Klan would come out in support of every one of their political enemies — leaving the electorate no choice but to vote the KKK into power.
Critics of Trump are more than welcome to voice their displeasure regarding Trump’s policies or character. However, if they are going to level such appalling allegations of “white supremacy” or “white nationalism,” they should be forced to provide evidence beyond “he’s white and I think he’s racist.” Refusing to do so shows a dismissive attitude towards the specificity of words, and a complete lack of acknowledgment for how despicable the ideologies of white nationalism and white supremacy truly are.

HAWORTH: Trump Is Not A White Supremacist

David Duke

Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

Racism

White Supremacy

Megan Rapinoe, the captain of the World Cup-winning U.S. women’s soccer team, has become the latest ideological thorn lodged underneath the collective skin of conservatives. But Rapinoe kneeling during the national anthem or saying that she isn&#8217;t “going to the f***ing White House” seems downright inoffensive compared to her behavior over the course of the past few days.
Appearing on multiple news outlets, Megan Rapinoe appeared self-centered and divisive. She criticized President Donald Trump, as expected. She made accusations of homophobia, as expected. And an adoring Rachel Maddow called for Rapinoe to run for president, as expected. After famously scoffing at the very notion of interacting with people who hold different opinions, Megan Rapinoe took to the stage during the World Cup victory parade in New York City to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/sports/soccer/soccer-parade.html">call for unity</a>: “This is my charge to everyone: We have to be better, we have to love more and hate less. Listen more and talk less.”
Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Megan Rapinoe said that she would be willing to have a “substantive conversation” with &#8220;anyone&#8221; &#8230; who &#8220;believes the same things&#8221; as she does. Combine this with her now-infamous admonition to “Listen more and talk less,” and we are getting dangerously close to Animal Farm’s quip: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Rapinoe, after saying she&#8217;ll never visit Trump, gives a &#8220;shoutout&#8221; to <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> and says she&#8217;ll go to D.C. to have a &#8220;substantive conversation&#8221; with &#8220;anyone&#8221; &#8230; who &#8220;believes the same things we believe in.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/vfhvlybEGT">pic.twitter.com/vfhvlybEGT</a>
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1148763329269313536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The hypocrisy of those on the Left calling for diversity while actively rejecting diversity of thought is certainly nothing new. However, Megan Rapinoe is indicative of a far greater problem.
Rapinoe has been lauded by her supporters as the ultimate leader. The New York Times described her as a “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/sports/megan-rapinoe-world-cup.html">Leader for Her Team, and Her Time</a>.” Unwittingly, the specific language used is actually quite apt. During the parade in New York, Rapinoe looked into the camera, holding the World Cup trophy in one hand and a bottle of champagne in the other, and belted out, “I deserve this.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">.<a href="https://twitter.com/mPinoe?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mPinoe</a> holding a trophy and a bottle of champagne and yelling “I DESERVE THIS” is a mood, an inspiration, a battle cry for women nationwide <a href="https://t.co/1r9YUDNBxD">pic.twitter.com/1r9YUDNBxD</a>
— Emmy Bengtson (@EmmyA2) <a href="https://twitter.com/EmmyA2/status/1148961770301788160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
“I,” not “we.” “Her,” not “our.” Those who are obsessively praising the leadership attributes of Megan Rapinoe prove that they have completely forgotten the virtues of leadership.
Leaders are not selfish. Leaders are selfless. Megan Rapinoe intentionally cast a shadow of controversy over the U.S. women’s World Cup campaign. She used the tournament as a platform to promote her own ideology, rather than pursuing patriotic unity to bridge ever-growing political divides. In return for the decision to promote herself as an activist, she willingly risked alienating potential supporters, thereby damaging her team and her sport.
Rapinoe has been compared to Colin Kaepernick, a similarly divisive figure who almost single-handedly divided NFL audiences by political ideology. While Rapinoe’s activism is built upon success, Kaepernick built his upon failure, timing his protests perfectly with his demotion to the bench. However, both Rapinoe and Kaepernick were leaders of their respective teams, and both were willing to sacrifice their responsibilities as leaders in favor of selfish and divisive objectives. Their actions represent the absolute antithesis of leadership.
Ronald Reagan, arguably the last true leader to have held the office of the presidency, described leadership as follows: “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.”
When Reagan spoke of “the people.” he was not speaking solely of those “on his team.” He was speaking of every person in the country. For Megan Rapinoe to earn the title of leader for “her time,” she must be a leader for “the people” — and not just “some people.”
Megan Rapinoe has yet to encourage “the people” to “do the greatest things”. Until she focuses on healing and unity, rather than fueling division, she will never be a true leader. Anyone can bring people together who are the same. It takes someone special to bring people together who are different.

HAWORTH: Megan Rapinoe Is No Leader

Feminism

Megan Rapinoe

Soccer

Sports

Political commentators certainly had their work cut out for them in the aftermath of the two Democratic Party presidential debates last week. Many moments received public scrutiny, as the 20 candidates jostled for support. Kamala Harris&#8217; assault on Joe Biden dominated the headlines, with other areas of focus including heavy support for gun control, the effective removal of American borders, and the blatant attempt to pander to various voting groups with promises of duplicity and insincerity.
However, one statement from Pete Buttigieg crept by relatively unnoticed. The calmly delivered words of the unassuming Harvard- and Oxford-educated mayor of South Bend, Indiana received a moment of applause, but then slipped into obscurity beneath waves of absurd sound bites and radical promises. When analyzed in isolation, it’s clear that <a href="https://youtu.be/bMBqcOwY5Rk?t=1149">his words are dripping with the sort of virulent anti-Christian bigotry</a> that has permeated even the highest levels of the American Left:
<blockquote>The Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion. We should call hypocrisy, and for a party that associates with Christianity to say it is OK to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religion language again.</blockquote>
Interestingly, Buttigieg doesn’t mention specific religious sects, organizations, or even individuals. The reason for this is that no such mainstream Christian sects, organizations, or individuals exist. It is willingly ignorant to argue that Christians believe that God endorses general child separation or detention, and lazily over-simplistic to claim that Christians who support various levels of immigration control are religious hypocrites who are in favor of such suffering.
Buttigieg’s attempt to slander Christian conservatives was a smoothly delivered example of a standard Democratic strategy. They present every societal issue as a false dilemma, where the only two choices are to either maintain the current situation or to fully accept and embrace their proposed solution. Then, if you dare to disagree with even the smallest element of their suggested policies, you are labeled as an uncaring, uncompassionate bigot who is solely motivated by a certain amount of schadenfreude.
The Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 platform is rife with similar examples. If you don’t agree with Democrats&#8217; views on abortion-on-demand, it’s because you hate women and want to see them as sexual slaves. If you don’t agree with their views on universal public healthcare, it’s because you want the poor to die. If you don’t agree with their views on open borders and the removal of the very notion of &#8220;illegal immigration,&#8221; it’s because you want migrant children to suffer. Pete Buttigieg applied this strategy, adding the false, anti-Christian argument that conservative Christians believe that the suffering of migrants is sanctioned by God.
The Democrats claim to be the party of unity, inclusivity, and diversity, yet they regularly exclude others based on their religion, gender, or political ideology. From a position of theological ignorance, using the most derisive and divisive language, they often cite Scripture in an attempt to uncover hypocrisy and thereby undermine religion itself.
Pete Buttigieg, himself an Episcopalian, seems to be trying to split the religious baby as he openly demonizes the entire American religious Right. He must remain attractive to the religious or pseudo-religious American Left — who themselves attribute their leftist viewpoints to their faith — while pandering to the Democrats&#8217; anti-religious base. In this case, he failed in his attempt.
Unless Buttigieg is able to provide an actual example of a conservative Christian who celebrates the suffering of migrants as a religious good sanctioned by God, he has shown us that beneath his inoffensive, reasoned, and calm facade lies either an unabashed anti-religious bigot, or someone who is willing to politically profit from the betrayal of his supposed faith.

HAWORTH: Is Pete Buttigieg An Anti-Christian Bigot?

Christianity

Religion

Several 2020 Democratic presidential nomination contenders have announced plans to forgive $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his ideological comrades claim that student debt is an unbearable weight placed unnecessarily upon the shoulders of younger generations, thus shackling them with debt they are unable to repay. 
The Left approaches each problem in our society with a one-size-fits-all solution. This solution is not to first identify the cause, but to instead throw money at the symptoms of the problem. By the time we discover that money wasn&#8217;t a solution, we&#8217;ll be arguing over proposed solutions to the next so-called social injustice on the radical Left&#8217;s radar.
Democrats see the $1.6 trillion as the entire problem. However, to claim that loan forgiveness is a solution to the problem beneath this debt is equivalent to presenting the victim of a gunshot wound with a tub of Vaseline. It might temporarily stop the bleeding, but it does nothing to combat the underlying issue.
The issue is that the Left continually fails to acknowledge that higher education is a service, and is therefore subject to the basic economic principle of supply and demand. As the educationally elitist Democrats push the concept of universal &#8220;free&#8221; higher education, the resulting rise in demand has two outcomes. The first is an increase in cost, and the second is a decrease in value.
The increase in cost is clear when we analyze college enrollment data. According to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/07/24/price-of-college-increasing-almost-8-times-faster-than-wages/#22d92a9166c1">Forbes</a>, based on the 2015-2016 academic year, the average cost across all four-year institutions came to $26,120 per year, compared to $6,725.50 in 1989 &#8212; $13,223 in today&#8217;s dollars, when adjusted for inflation. According to the <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t187.asp">National Center for Education Statistics</a>, 59.6% of high school graduates enrolled in college in 1989, compared to 69.2% in 2015, according to the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm">U.S. Department of Labor</a>. While there has been a <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84">40% increase</a> in the number of four-year institutions between the 1990&#8211;1991 and 2015&#8211;2016 academic years, the new institutions are not uniformly distributed along the axis of college rankings.
The concomitant decrease in quality of graduate occurs for three reasons. The first is the result of differentiation, where the proportional increase in the number of bachelor degree graduates results in the reduction in value of a bachelor degree in the eyes of future employers. The second is the result of so-called &#8220;credentialism,&#8221; where higher-ranked institutions provide an advantage over lower-ranked colleges in the job market. Finally, there is the result of program differentiation, where those who graduate with a degree in computer science will often be a more attractive candidate than those who graduate with a degree in gender studies.
The common theme, in terms of the reduction in quality of median college graduate, is the perceived value placed upon the degree and institution by prospective employers. This should force Democrats to acknowledge that education is a service designed to prepare students to enter the workplace by providing them with marketable skills which will, in turn, increase their value in the eyes of future employers. With this in mind, the pursuit of education becomes an investment of time and effort, for which there is a measurable expectation of return. If the return does not justify the investment, then it is a bad investment. Knowingly making a bad investment is a bad life choice.
Student loans exist to provide equality of access to education, in order to ensure that no one is prevented from receiving a quality education based on their initial financial situation. However, equality of access should never be conflated with equality of outcome. If you make the decision to take out debt in order to receive your desired level of education, you should take responsibility for the outcome. Since we expect to reap the rewards of good decisions, it is not society&#8217;s responsibility to swallow the result of our bad decisions. 
Yes, some will be able to afford to make frivolous educational choices due to greater financial freedom. But this so-called &#8220;unfairness&#8221; does not justify the demand that those who made good decisions foot the bill for those who made bad decisions. 
The truth is simple. Only go to college if it&#8217;s worth the investment.

Harvard University Campus

HAWORTH: Can’t Justify Student Debt? Don’t Go To College.

Democratic Socialism

Economy

Socialism

When you hear people criticize socialism, they will often provide arguments based upon pragmatism or practicality, using some mutation of &#8220;Socialism has never worked.&#8221; However, the true argument against socialism is based on morality, not pragmatism. Regardless of whether socialism could ever be successfully implemented, it is a wholly immoral ideology that wields the weight of the state in order to enact unethical policies, justified by a misplaced sense of assumed compassion.
The same logic holds true when it comes to the debate surrounding slavery reparations. In an attempt to argue against the apparent pursuit of retrospective racial justice through monetary redistribution, many questions of practicality are raised. &#8220;What about some African-Americans whose descendents were never held as slaves? What about mixed-race citizens? Should people whose descendents actively fought against slavery have to pay?&#8221;
While these are all important questions, they become completely irrelevant when we analyze slavery reparations from a moral perspective. Even if these impossible questions were answered, and we were presented with a cogent and practical implementation strategy, the overarching moral truth would remain unchanged &#8211; slavery reparations are built upon the immoral and racist premise that some individuals are responsible for the crimes of other individuals based solely on a shared racial trait.
Individuals are responsible for crimes, even crimes as utterly abhorrent as slavery. To blame one individual for the crime of another solely because they share a skin color is, by definition, racist. This remains true regardless of how many years lie between the guilty and the innocent.
Advocates for reparations make the implicit assumption that there exists some metric by which we can measure societal guilt for slavery by which we can impart judgement and punishment in the form of monetary compensation. If we set aside the temptation to focus on practicality and remain solely in the arena of moral debate, it is clearly wrong to claim that any person alive today should be assigned blame or guilt for the crimes of the past, thereby invalidating the entire argument in favor of slavery reparations.
We shouldn&#8217;t blame Germans born to Nazi parents for the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, let alone Germans born years later. The same is true of those born to slaveholders who rejected the foul practice, and is certainly true of those who are generations removed from the appalling legacy of slavery.
Slavery is a detestable practice, and a stain on Western history. Nothing should ever be done to dismiss or deny the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. However, the scale of these horrors alone do not justify the illogical and immoral leaps made by some who call for slavery reparations under the guise of righting historical wrongs, or in an attempt to blame all modern societal disparities on the legacy of slavery.
When we are faced with issues as complex as societal development over centuries, it is crucial that we build logical arguments upon immutable fundamental principles. One of these principles must be that we cannot allow racism to dictate policy. When we cannot find individuals at fault, it is unacceptable to apply blame on a racial level as an alternative, regardless of the motivation.
To hold those who are alive today as guilty for the crimes of the past is immoral. To hold those who are alive today as guilty for the crimes of the past based solely on their skin color is racist.

HAWORTH: Slavery Reparations are Immoral and Racist

Reparations

Menu