“Goodbye, great power competition and hello, strategic competition,” this is what the Biden Administration’s Pentagon spokesperson recently told Daniel Lipmann of Politico. According to analysts, these comments signal a shift toward a more cooperative, even conciliatory, American posture toward the Chinese Communist Party. Further, President Joe Biden told the media on October 6 that he had “spoken with [Chinese President Xi Jinping] about Taiwan. We agree that we will abide by the Taiwan Agreement.”
The agreement that Mr. Biden was referring to was the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, an ambiguous agreement forged between China and the United States in which Taiwan would be treated by the United States as a foreign country without being formally recognized as such. While the 1979 agreement does allow for the provision of American military aid to Taiwan such that Taiwan can “maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,” the terms of this agreement allow for the Americans to shirk away from Taiwan whenever it is convenient for Washington to do so.
The Biden-Xi call came on the heels of China’s brazen violation of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) during the week of October 1. At that time, China deployed more than 50 warplanes to violate Taiwan’s ADIZ, testing Taiwan’s overworked air defense network and pushing the island’s military to the point of exasperation. At some point, a grave miscalculation will occur between China and Taiwan—a mistake that could spark another world war that Washington is not prepared or willing to fight.
In response to the recent Chinese aggression against Taiwan, the United States deployed two aircraft carrier strike groups near Okinawa. These powerful American warships linked up with the British Royal Navy’s carrier strike group. A group of warships from Japan, New Zealand, Canada, and the Netherlands also joined the American led flotilla.
The flotilla was meant to deter Beijing from any further acts of aggression during a low point in relations between Beijing and Washington.
Beijing was likely unimpressed.
Deterrence only works on an opponent who is willing to abandon the objective you are trying to prevent that opponent from achieving. Frankly, Beijing wants Taiwan more than Washington wants to keep the island away from China.
The current situation in China is especially dangerous for Xi Jinping’s continued rule. As China’s economy goes through a massive reorganization that could take down Xi’s regime, the Chinese ruler is looking to distract his people through powerful displays of nationalism, such as reclaiming the “lost” Chinese province of Taiwan.
President Biden, meanwhile, is beset by crises everywhere.
The American economy teeters on the brink as inflation continues unabated, a government shutdown looms, brittle supply chains cannot keep up with increased demand, Americans eschew returning to work in favor of greater welfare payments, and COVID-19 continues to rampage throughout the United States. To offset these economic threats to Biden’s presidency, the White House will likely try to get a new trade deal crafted with China that will curb inflation and generate trade.
What’s more, President Biden is fearful of a manmade global climate catastrophe. Both he and his climate czar, John Kerry, have for years insisted that China is key to curbing anthropogenic climate change. Far from courting war with China, the Biden Administration likely is seeking to reset relations to what they were before Donald Trump’s rise in 2016.
No matter what President Biden says, it is unlikely that he will commit US forces to defend Taiwan. According to a 2021 survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, only 41 percent of Americans support US military power being used to defend Taiwan. Therefore, it’s not politically expedient for Biden to risk another world war—at least according to the polls—anymore than it was for Biden to keep US forces in Afghanistan.
Beijing is quickly approaching the time when it is prepared to call Washington’s bluff over Taiwan. Should Biden refuse to act militarily to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Beijing would probably offer Biden the useless consolation prize of a hollow climate deal and a new trade deal that empowers China in the long run. The diminution of American power will continue under Biden until there’s nothing left of the American-led world order.
With America’s only options being world war or capitulation, without an actual leader to rally the American people to stand for what’s right and to chart a new course, what else other than the collapse of American power in the Indo-Pacific can one expect?
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Brandon J. Weichert is the author of “Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower” (Republic Book Publisher). He manages The Weichert Report: World News Done Right and can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon. The views expressed are the author&#8217;s own.
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

Will Biden Abandon Taiwan?

China

Taiwan

Many Americans today assume that the threat of Communism subsided with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But “We continue to see Communist and socialist regimes pop up and spread not only in Latin America – for example, in Venezuela and Nicaragua – but around the world,” says Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, president and CEO of the <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/">Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation</a> (VOC). “These regimes regularly kill their own citizens and have a devastating effect on human rights and their national economies.” In fact, over 1.5 billion people – including those living in Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and, of course, China – currently live under oppressive Communist and socialist governments.
Founded in 1993 by a bipartisan, unanimous Act of Congress, VOC is “devoted to commemorating the more than 100 million victims of communism around the world and to pursuing the freedom of those still living under totalitarian regimes.”
Before coming to VOC, Bremberg served as the Trump administration’s Representative of the United States to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva. During his time there, which he describes as a “profound and life changing experience,” he “became aware of the challenge of China,” which was “far worse” than he had realized. He notes that the U.N. International Human Rights Council made investigating the United States’ record on racism during the summer of 2020 its highest priority – putting it above China’s appalling human rights violations against Uyghurs, among other ethnic groups within its borders.
“Communist countries by far have the worst record on human rights, past and present,” Bremberg argues. “Their brutality is only outdone by their lies and obfuscations.” Seeing this moral imbalance up close convinced him of the “need to educate Americans about the dangers of Communism today.”
American civic education, Bremberg states, entails not only understanding the structure of our form of government but also the world around us. Pointing to the competing claims of the 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission, he notes that while we should be willing to “be self-critical and examine our past,” we also need to view our nation in comparison to others, especially ones existing under Communism’s iron fist.
While Bremberg says that the United States has done an excellent job highlighting the horrors of the Holocaust in K-12 education – he recalls the effect that reading Anne Frank’s personal diary has had on generations of students – students’ understanding of Communism is weak by comparison. VOC spotlights Communism’s devastating record and the continuing threat it poses to free government by “telling powerful stories and highlighting examples of Communism’s victims.” These stories, he argues, “capture our imaginations, creating deeper connections” that will help students “learn core truths” that will stick with them.
VOC offers a number of <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/resources/">resources</a> to do just that. Its <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/programs/witness-project/">Witness Project</a> is an award-winning video series featuring victims of Communism telling powerful, heart-wrenching stories. One video highlights the harrowing journey of <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/witness/ji-seong-ho/">Ji Seong-ho</a>, who escaped North Korea by walking ten thousand kilometers on crutches. President Trump recognized his bravery and courage during an <a href="https://youtu.be/03lFZQrhyns">unforgettable moment</a> during the 2018 State of the Union Address.
Other programs and content include VOC’s annual <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/programs/seminars/">National Education Seminar</a> for middle and high school teachers (it will be <a href="https://www.streamablelearning.com/app/victims-of-communism-memorial-foundation/">live-streamed</a> starting next year), a complete <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Communism-3RD.pdf">curriculum</a> with fact sheets highlighting what Communism has wrought on the world stage, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj2-gW7tDdvpfz3aDkl4lsJUBTziw2qbP">Communism in the World</a> webinars featuring thoughtful presentations from experts. VOC’s three fellowship programs on <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/study-center/china/">China</a>, <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/study-center/latin-america/">Latin America</a>, and <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/study-center/poland/">Poland</a> feature <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/type/articles/">articles</a>, <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/type/reports/">reports</a>, and <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/programs/research/books/">books</a> by affiliated scholars that cover all aspects of Communism. The Baltic Fellowship program should begin next year with an Estonian scholar working with VOC in D.C.
Students can visit the <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/about/memorial/">Victims of Communism Memorial statue</a> in Washington, D.C., which commemorates those killed by Communist regimes. Dedicated by President George W. Bush on the 20th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s famous “Tear Down this Wall” speech, the statue depicts the “Goddess of Democracy” holding a torch – the same statue Chinese students erected during the famous protests in Tiananmen Square.
Upcoming events include the <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/event/the-china-forum-2021/">China Forum</a> – a conference featuring scholars and speakers on the issues and challenges related to the People’s Republic of China – and an <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/event/voc-day-st-louis-2021/">event</a> in St. Louis to commemorate VOC’s Memorial Day, which occurs annually on November 7. Audiences will hear gripping accounts from those who experienced Communism’s tyranny firsthand.
In 2022, VOC will proudly <a href="https://victimsofcommunism.org/about/museum/">open</a> “a world-class, digitally integrated museum” in Washington, D.C., that will provide “a captivating visitor experience,” a goal more than 25 years in the making. Located at McPherson Square, the museum will be an “international hub of scholarship and citizen engagement for the 21st century anticommunist movement.”
“Through Western capitalism and democracy,” Bremberg argues, “we can better protect human rights and improve our system over time through self-correction by civic participation” – an approach that makes a stark contrast with the horrors that Communism has inflicted upon hundreds of millions of people in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Mike Sabo is the editor of <a href="https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/public_affairs/american_civics/">RealClear’s American Civics portal</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>.

Communism

Educating Students About The Victims Of Communism

Education

Amid growing bipartisan agreement that increased regulation of social media platforms and their content moderation policies is needed, the path forward remains murky. Should Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act be discarded or strengthened? Should companies be broken up using antitrust laws? Should government set speech rules for the web? Should users decide them? Or should there be no rules at all?
There is no shortage of solutions being put forth to solve the challenge of social media censorship. The problem is that without a better understanding of how social platforms invisibly shape the public square of democracy today, we don’t know which of these possible solutions might have the greatest impact. In short, to fix social media, we first need a better understanding of its ills: Section 230 must be amended to legislate social platform transparency.
A new RealClearFoundation report, “<a href="https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1894_leetaru-realclear-transparencysocialmedia.pdf">Transparency Is the First Step Toward Addressing Social Media Censorship</a>,” outlines the public data sets we need to usher in transparency and better understand the challenges we face.
Much as a doctor cannot prescribe a treatment plan for a patient without first diagnosing the specific ailments from which they suffer, meaningful reform of social censorship requires data-driven interventions. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-whistleblower-say-former-employer-an-urgent-threat-us-2021-10-05/">warned</a> last week that &#8220;as long as Facebook is operating in the shadows, hiding its [work] from public scrutiny, it is unaccountable.&#8221; The problem, as Haugen notes, is that we lack the most basic data on how social platforms function and their impact on society to be able to understand how we might best regulate them.
How did we get here?
Almost since America’s founding, the nation has wrestled with what Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan once called the “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9LHQehQel4UC&amp;pg=PR9#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">intractable</a>” problem of defining what kinds of speech should be permitted and which should be banned. Early efforts focused on regulating speakers themselves, shifting over time to gatekeepers, allowing citizens freedom to express their views under the First Amendment but limiting the distribution of undesirable views to the public. Censorship rules reflecting local morals gave way to centralized national rules, which social platforms have today turned into global rules. Allowing states agency to define acceptable speech failed to prevent conflicts, as they attempted to silence speech from afar, while centralizing power meant a single set of rules had to be defined for an entire nation. These speech arbitrators evolved from government officials in the Post Office era to private companies in the motion picture and early radio era to hybrid models in the later broadcasting era. Left in private hands, publishers censored topics and public figures they disliked. Left in government hands, policy dissent and criticism were silenced. Left to the courts, consensus was elusive and the rules ever-changing.
The end result was the creation of Section 230.
A nation that had tried every conceivable approach to defining acceptable speech, from local to federal, government to private, mandatory to voluntary, courts to capitalism essentially gave up and asked private companies in Silicon Valley to take over and decide for themselves what America should be allowed to see and say. Seduced by the idea that the precision of mathematics and computer code could solve what two centuries of democracy could not, Congress granted private Internet companies near-absolute power to regulate digital speech globally.
The problem is that Section 230 failed to require anything in return for this near-absolute immunity. It simply trusted that these companies would always put the nation’s best interests ahead of their own <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-whistleblower-say-former-employer-an-urgent-threat-us-2021-10-05/">profit</a>. States were explicitly barred from narrowing 230’s protections and government was given no oversight role, depriving the American public from influencing or even seeing the rules that govern the digital public square. Most importantly, Section 230 failed to require even the most basic of transparency around how companies wielded its protections.
Social media companies today routinely restrict posts and suspend, ban, or demonetize users without any explanation or by citing vague or unrelated policies. Search the web for the phrase “suspended with no explanation” along with the name of any major social platform, and endless pages detailing user experiences will be returned. Even mainstream media is not exempt, as Twitter’s <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/twitter_facebook__hunter_biden_big_tech_as_big_brother_144467.html">ever-changing</a> explanations for banning the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story reinforces. Yet the only glimpses of the detailed rules defining what is “acceptable” tend to come from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/facebook-files">leaks</a> of internal company <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039">documents</a> to the press rather than voluntary disclosures by the companies themselves.
Moreover, Section 230’s reach now extends beyond the web to the physical world, as Facebook arbitrates which <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/29/blocked_march_for_life_tweets_raise_free_speech_concerns_142260.html">protest</a> <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/22/facebooks_covid-protest_ban_renews_censorship_concerns_143003.html">marches</a> are permissible to promote; Uber and Lyft ban users over their <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/laura-loomer-banned-uber-lyft-after-anti-muslim-tweetstorm-n816911">tweets</a>; Airbnb <a href="https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/airbnb-to-ban-guests-associated-with-hate-groups-violent-activity-ahead-of-inauguration/">banishes</a> users over their group <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40867272">affiliations</a>; Amazon <a href="https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/book-banning-in-an-age-of-amazon">refuses</a> to publish books it disagrees with; and even Microsoft crafts <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/07/26/censorship-comes-for-the-desktop-how-microsoft-has-infused-values-into-windows-and-office/">acceptable use</a> policies for desktop software. Even foreign-owned TikTok <a href="https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html">banned</a> Donald Trump, as did its U.S. peers, reflecting the increasingly international reach of Silicon Valley’s rules.
Where do we go from here?
Fixing social media requires first understanding how these unimaginably powerful black boxes truly function internally. Section 230 must be amended to require that in return for the liability immunity they enjoy, Internet platforms must make the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline">real-world</a> rules, algorithms, design decisions and management directives that determine what we see each day accessible to policymakers, researchers, the press and the public at large. Social media’s reach into Americans’ daily lives is <a href="https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1892_leetaru-social-media-digital-censorship-and-the-future-of-democracy-working-paper.pdf">too great</a> to leave our understanding of its harms and undue influence to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/facebook-files">courage</a> of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039">whistleblowers</a>. A new Section 230 “transparency amendment” would require that social platforms make an <a href="https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1894_leetaru-realclear-transparencysocialmedia.pdf">array of key datasets</a> publicly available, thus replacing chance leaks with routine disclosure and enabling policymakers to have informed data-driven debates as they seek to chart a regulatory path forward.
Transparency alone cannot solve our diverse and divided nation’s disagreements over the ideas, beliefs, knowledge, and speech that should guide our democratic debates over our shared future. What it can do is transform today’s closed and seemingly capricious systems into a public process — akin to our legal and electoral systems — that can be scrutinized and publicly debated.
Today’s RealClearFoundation report, “<a href="https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1894_leetaru-realclear-transparencysocialmedia.pdf">Transparency Is the First Step Toward Addressing Social Media Censorship</a>,” offers a glimpse of what this transparent future might look like, while the full-length research report behind it, “<a href="https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1892_leetaru-social-media-digital-censorship-and-the-future-of-democracy-working-paper.pdf">Social Media, Digital Censorship &amp; the Future of Democracy</a>,” details America’s 2½-century journey to a world in which a handful of unelected billionaires wield near-absolute control over digital speech, with the power to censor citizens and governments alike, arbitrate “acceptable speech” for the entire planet, determine “truth” and even silence the presidency.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
RealClear Media Fellow Kalev Leetaru is a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber &amp; Homeland Security. His past roles include fellow in residence at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.
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>.

Social media

A Call To Amend Section 230 For Social Media Transparency

Section 230 Social Media

As the Supreme Court begins its 2021-2022 term this week with several high-profile cases on the docket, Americans should be mindful of the machinations of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. President Biden created the commission, composed overwhelmingly of law professors, in April to consider the Left’s demands for “reform,” such as increasing the number of justices — better known as court packing. Demands from the Left to enlarge the court erupted last year when President Trump exercised his constitutional prerogative to fill a vacancy.
The current number of justices, set by Congress, has been unchanged since 1869. The last time court packing was an issue was in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt — upset about the court’s rulings against his administration’s priorities — proposed adding up to six seats.
When he was a senator, Joe Biden proclaimed court packing a “bone-head idea. … It was a terrible, terrible mistake, and it put into question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body … the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” Packing the court in support of Biden’s agenda is no less “bone-headed” than it was in the Roosevelt era.
Proponents of court packing presume that adding seats, and thus allowing Biden to appoint four new justices at once, would shift the ideological balance to the left and reverse the way the court would rule on a given case. History shows, however, that a justice’s vote on a particular case does not necessarily reflect the ideology of the president who appointed him or her. President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren and William Brennan, two of the most activist justices in history. He later reportedly deemed their appointments his two worst mistakes as president. President Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, which created a constitutional right to abortion. President George H.W. Bush’s appointee David Souter became a reliable member of the court’s liberal wing and cast the deciding vote to reaffirm Roe.
But let’s assume that the new justices President Biden nominates and the Senate confirms are reliably liberal, voting consistently with the three liberals now on the court. What happens when control of the executive and legislative branches changes from Democratic to Republican? Republicans would be hard-pressed not to expand the court again, adding justices to move rulings in a conservative direction. These seismic shifts would destroy Americans’ faith in the ability of the judiciary to safeguard fundamental rights from intrusion by the political branches of government. The Supreme Court would become just another political branch.
Court packing, and other left-wing “fixes” to the court such as the imposition of fixed terms for justices or guaranteeing each president one or two nominees regardless of vacancies, would blast to oblivion the very foundation of our unique system of government: separation of powers, checks and balances, and three co-equal branches. The American judicial system’s independence is critical to maintaining the role of the judiciary as a co-equal branch.
And that independence is a shining example for the world. As noted above, there are many momentous decisions where Supreme Court justices have ruled against the political interests of the president who appointed them. Threatening that independence for any reason — but especially because of the political leanings of duly appointed and confirmed judges — smacks of the actions of petty dictators in less-developed countries. Do leftists really want our country to follow the examples of Venezuela and Argentina?
Americans look to the Supreme Court as the ultimate protector of the freedoms guaranteed to them under our Constitution. They rely on the court to rein in the excesses of the legislative and executive branches. As Justice Stephen Breyer put it, “If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches.”
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, never one to mince words, echoed this sentiment, stating, “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”
That is exactly what the schemes being given serious consideration in the president’s SCOTUS committee will do: undermine Americans’ confidence in the rule of law and make the court a partisan body. And from there, it is not a far leap to Venezuela or Argentina.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Beverly McKittrick is the director of the Regulatory Action Center (RAC) at FreedomWorks. Most recently, she served in the Trump administration at the Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary.
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>.

SCOTUS building

As Panel Eyes SCOTUS, We Must Preserve Court’s Independence

Supreme Court

Joe Manchin said it best: “We have 11 million jobs that we haven’t filled, 8 million people still unemployed. Something’s not matching up here.” The West Virginia senator’s instincts are right. Something in the labor market fundamentally changed during the pandemic. Fewer people seem willing to work.
The National Federation of Independent Business has been conducting a monthly survey of small business owners since 1974. The <a href="https://www.nfib.com/foundations/research-center/monthly-reports/jobs-report/">August results</a> were disconcerting. A 48-year record high — 50% — reported job openings that could not be filled. Of those owners hiring or trying to hire, 91% reported there were few or no “qualified” applicants. A record high 29% reporting no — zero — qualified applicants. All this despite a record high 41% reporting that they had increased compensation. As a result, another record high — 28% — identified labor quality as their top business problem.
So, what’s causing these historically bad results?
Conservatives believe the $300 weekly federal unemployment insurance bonus that expired in September suppressed the labor market. That makes intuitive sense and Goldman Sachs’ economists <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wsj.com_articles_states-2Dthat-2Dcut-2Dunemployment-2Dbenefits-2Dsaw-2Dlimited-2Dimpact-2Don-2Djob-2Dgrowth-2D11630488601&amp;d=DwMFaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=kUUgyyEV2SvFHr5qpgCYmPd_ciwpMjMibMYtrcxM-dMpVcUH7z-wGwjkIwWeefpd&amp;m=VSCovfmONdYUoJuJxR0UdGgqQuL3MVdz_3PU9QV2zIc&amp;s=n5kFtLD56WAD-amwm8tHIEzbPC9avK3SpdFJvsn-rqA&amp;e=">project</a> that ending this program “will account for 1.5 million job gains through the end of the year.” But even assuming that is true, there were <a href="https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet">5.3 million</a> fewer jobs in August than when the pandemic began.
Attempting to explain the dismal August jobs numbers, President Biden <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?514452-1/president-biden-delta-variant-blame-august-jobs-report-numbers&amp;live=">blamed</a> the Delta variant. But <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total">77%</a> of Americans over 18 have had at least one vaccine shot and 68% have had both. About <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends">700,000</a> additional doses are being administered every day. Add in unvaccinated individuals with natural immunity and one <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/09/12/the-us-is-nearing-immunity-from-covid-19/">analysis</a> recently found that roughly 80% of the country already has vaccinated or natural immunity.
Bottom line, neither the virus nor the weekly unemployment bonus fully explain the extent of the current labor shortage. To determine if there were other explanations for the slow return to work, I spoke with 10 business owners in the retail sector that I’ve known for years.
While some mentioned COVID and the federal unemployment bonus as concerns, to a person their primary concern was that people seem to have lost the desire to work following more than a year of government support. Their experiences ranged from literally no one willing to work to prospective employees refusing to take jobs that required working full time, weekends, or evenings.
The business owners were all willing to increase pay to get good employees, but believe they are competing with work-free government largesse – and losing.
While Americans had $400 billion more in savings in July than when the pandemic began, the Biden administration has increased food stamp benefits by 25% and Democrats now want to make the current <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-monthly-child-tax-credit-payments-begin">$3,600</a> per year tax credit for children under 6 — and $3,000 for older children — <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/dem-lawmakers-call-for-permanent-expansion-of-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit.html">permanent</a> rather than letting it expire next July.
The child tax credit is a good example of the growing government support mentality businesses are up against. The very <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/welfare-reform-successful-statistics/">successful</a> 1996 bipartisan welfare reform effort required that a substantial percentage of those receiving welfare work, if they were able bodied. Those reforms were good for employees as well as employers looking to hire. They helped struggling parents find jobs, become financially independent and lift their families out of poverty. The labor market grew.
The child tax credit ignores that success. Expressing concern with the structure — not the substance — of making this program permanent, Sen. Manchin complained that “[t]here’s no work requirements whatsoever. There’s no education requirements whatsoever for better skill sets. Don’t you think, if we’re going to help the children, that the [parents] should make some effort?”
Manchin got that right as well. But, apparently, encouraging work is not his party’s goal.
We all want to lift children out of poverty. We also want — and employers want to provide — good jobs and fulfilling careers. But people struggling financially will never find those jobs if the government seduces them into living off what other people produce rather than realizing their potential, accomplishing financial independence, and experiencing the dignity and self-respect that come with a job.
Government dependence is neither the way out of poverty nor the path back to 2019’s thriving pre-pandemic labor market — where the labor force and real incomes were growing, family income hit a historic high while poverty hit historic lows both generally and for minorities. As for child poverty, it decreased to 14.4%, the lowest child poverty rate since 1973 — down from 18% at the end of the Obama/Biden era. The best family welfare program truly is a job.
So, if encouraging work is not the goal, what is?
Increasingly, Biden and the Democrats are attempting to cobble together the socialists’ dream program — universal basic income with cradle-to-grave government dependence. That should come as no surprise. As Biden acknowledged in May of 2020, progressives have long viewed the pandemic as an “incredible opportunity” to “fundamentally transform” America. With lackluster jobs numbers, the inability of business owners to find workers, and a declining work ethic, we have every reason to take them at their word.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andy Puzder is the former CEO of CKE Restaurants, a board member of the Job Creators Network, a senior fellow at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy, and the author of “The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left&#8217;s Plot to Stop It.”
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 Manchin

On Unemployment, Joe Manchin Hit The Nail On The Head

Economy

Leftism

Unemployment

I started pipelining in 2008 during one of the worst economic recessions our country has ever witnessed. I’ve seen disaster after disaster, both natural and policy-related, devastate our oil and gas supply over the past 13 years of my pipelining career. Yet through all of this, I have never been more concerned for our nation and its energy security than I am right now, watching the Biden administration minimize the progress we have made over the past decade.
I began my career as a welder’s helper before realizing that I had all of the necessary skills to be a pipeline welder myself. I’ve become passionate about doing my part to bring reliable, affordable, safe energy to the American people. Being married to someone in the pipeline industry as well, we’ve seen the industry change over the years— sometimes for the better and lately, for the worst.
After working 10 to 12 hour shifts on projects across the country and making a good living, I was instantly out of a job when President Biden decided to <a href="https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/07/28/why_is_the_biden_administration_attacking_americas_energy_independence_787549.html">favor foreign pipelines</a> over critical infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL pipeline here at home. Not only was I immediately out of a job during a struggling, post-pandemic job market, but I was pregnant with my first child. This past year and a half was supposed to be the most joyful year of my life— not the most stressful. However, President Biden seemed to have other plans for pipeliners like myself.
When you have a child, your entire mindset changes. I instantly went into “provider mode,” yet I no longer had a job and paycheck to help provide for my family. I’ve now been laid off for over a year and disadvantaged because of the effective halt on new pipeline projects in our country. At this point, I see very little hope for the future of American energy. I’m disappointed in President Biden’s failing leadership, which has impacted my husband, my newborn son, and the course of our nation.
Pipeline welding is all I’ve ever known. And I don’t just believe in it because it’s my job, I believe in it for the sake of my son’s future – our nation’s future. Hardworking families like mine need <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/the-natural-gas-reality-check-a-96-billion-price-tag">affordable gas</a> for our vehicles and cheap energy to heat our homes, dry our clothes, and cook dinner. I can’t imagine how bad it will be if these rising gas prices continue.
Prioritizing pipeline infrastructure in America is the best path forward from an environmental perspective. A <a href="https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/pipelines-are-safest-way-transport-oil-and-gas">recent study</a> reaffirms that pipelines are 4.5 times safer than transporting oil and gas by rail or truck. If the Biden administration is trying to be environmentally conscious, they better look at the facts before trying to threaten viable pipelines like Dakota Access. Pipelines are the most climate-friendly, effective option; far more “green” and safe compared to the alternatives.
One missed paycheck at a time, I lose more hope in the current state of our country. During his campaign, Joe Biden promised to be an advocate for middle class families. However, he has instead <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/keystone-xl-cancellation-has-ripple-effect-on-pipeline-workers-native-americans">killed thousands of family-sustaining pipeline jobs</a>. I will most likely have to settle for an entry-level job with entry-level pay here in Tennessee now that there seems to be no realistic options. John Kerry’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/29/kerrys-misleading-framing-potential-solar-wind-jobs/">empty promise</a> of employing us in solar panel jobs has so far not come to fruition. The Biden administration is putting people like myself out of jobs that are needed now more than ever as we try to recover post-pandemic.
I found purpose in working on projects like the Keystone pipeline, Mountaineer Express, and the Buckeye Express over the past thirteen years. My hope is that one day I’ll get to do the job I love again, in order to provide for my family and provide reliable energy to Americans.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Suzanne Walker is a pipeline welder based in Reagan, Tennessee, who lost her job after President Biden canceled Keystone XL. She is affiliated with Pipeliners Local Union 798.
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’s Energy Policies Hurt My Family

Dakota Access Pipeline

Energy

Keystone XL

From streaming services <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/beyond-office-here-are-several-more-shows-taken-down-era-cancel-culture-1625505">removing</a> older episodes of “The Office” to scholars and teachers <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/08/31/fire-launches-new-database-tracking-attacks-speech">losing their jobs</a> and suffering serious professional consequences, cancel culture is running rampant in America today. However, <a href="https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2020-time-series-study/">new data</a> from the canonical American National Election Studies (ANES) reveals that significant numbers of Americans believe that cancel culture has gone too far. Self-censoring and easy offense are on the rise. And <a href="https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04/how-did-american-wokeness-jump-from-elite-schools-to-everyday-life">contrary to popular belief</a>, younger Americans are just as likely as their older counterparts to view cancel culture as a net negative. Americans’ opinions of cancel culture and hypersensitivity fall along traditional ideological, educational, and racial lines, suggesting that this movement is anything but something exclusively spawned by younger Americans.
Specifically, the latest round of ANES data shows that non-trivially large numbers of Americans across all generational cohorts report censoring their speech at similar frequencies. Forty-five percent of Gen Zers (Americans ages 18 to 24) as well as 45 percent of Millennials (ages 25 to 40) say that they self-censor themselves at least occasionally. Forty-one percent of their Gen X parents (ages 41 to 57) report doing this, and 40 percent of their Boomer grandparents (ages 57 to 75) say the same. Ironically, those in the Silent Generation &#8212; Americans between ages 76 and 93 &#8212; are far less likely to report silencing themselves, with only 29 percent reporting doing so. Even if the eldest cohort is more open, the fact remains that almost 4 in 10 Americans readily concede that they limit and watch what they say on a fairly regular basis and think this is not healthy behavior in a democratic polity.
Moreover, the data shows there is generational parity in the belief that many people are too easily offended and that sensitivity in speech and discourse has gone too far. A majority of Gen Zers (53 percent), Millennials (51 percent), Gen Xers (56 percent), and Boomers (54 percent) all believe that people are too easily offended.
So, age is clearly not the issue here. Instead, ideology, education, and race &#8212; the same factors that cleave so much of society today &#8212; play real roles in shaping attitudes toward cancel culture.
Looking at ideology, for instance, nearly three-quarters of extreme liberals (73 percent) report that they rarely or never self-censor compared to about half of moderates (54 percent) and conservatives (51 percent). Similarly, when asked if Americans need to change the way we talk, the overwhelming majority of extreme liberals (83 percent) and liberals (77 percent) believe that change is necessary. In comparison, under half of moderates (46 percent), less than a fifth of conservatives (18 percent), and just 13 percent of very conservative individuals say the same.
While there is little variance in reported self-censoring across educational levels, attitudes toward sensitivity are varied. Fifty-seven percent of those with only a high school education believe people are too sensitive and too easily offended these days. In contrast, only 47 percent of those with college degrees and 41 percent of those with graduate degrees say the same.
Finally, race plays a significant role in cancel culture as well. In terms of occasionally self-censoring, differences between black and white Americans are not big (37 percent vs. 42 percent), while almost half of Asian Americans (49 percent) report silencing themselves occasionally or more often.
A far more pronounced difference emerges when the nature of discourse is examined. A majority of white respondents (59 percent) hold that Americans are too easily offended. Americans of other racial identities, however, respond quite differently. Only a third of black Americans (34 percent) think Americans need to be less sensitive, while nearly two-thirds (62 percent) maintain that people should change the way they talk. Hispanic and Asian Americans are slightly less worried about Americans needing to change their approach (46 percent vs. 48 percent), but slight majorities of both groups believe that Americans should change the way they talk with others.
Americans who typically lean toward the political Left are more likely to believe people need to change the way they talk and engage with others. But shutting down discourse, limiting the ability of others to question and engage, and canceling those whose views are deemed offensive is dangerous to our nation’s progress and democratic health. The ANES data makes it clear that these impulses are not coming from younger Americans but instead from progressive forces.
Cancel culture and hate-filled attacks that often emanate from those on the Left are not only <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/09/why-liberals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think-215114/">hypocritical</a> given the language of love and tolerance liberals preach but are also counterproductive. Our civic vitality is threatened when people cannot find shared humanity and, as the data shows, censor their speech, keeping their questions, ideas, and values to themselves. We as a nation must do better than this. In order to reach our potential, we must welcome dialogue, embrace viewpoint diversity, and hear the other side.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Samuel J. Abrams is professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Canceled sign

Cancel Culture Is Ideological, Not Generational

Cancel Culture

If there’s one thing the Left knows cold, it’s deception. From Vladimir Lenin to Saul Alinsky, leftists are unparalleled masters of the art of victory through hoodwinking: Defeating opponents by fooling them into false agreement.
Owning the battlefield in this war starts with controlling the language. We’ve seen this play out in the debate over abortion access, with pro-choice activists <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/left-wing-environmentalists-trying-to-redefine-pro-life/">redefining</a> “pro-life” to mean anything but the conviction that life begins at conception — and swindling unwitting Christians into their ranks.
Now it’s spreading to the debate over climate change, with environmental activists claiming there’s nothing “partisan” about their one-sided campaign to fundamentally transform America. Radicals, socialists, and authoritarians know that global warming offers them the best chance to weaponize Big Government and dictate where Americans live and work, what they drive, eat, and buy, and even what beliefs they’re allowed to hold — all through fear.
Truth-loving skeptics are all that stand in their way. So what better way to defeat them than by undermining the skeptics’ unity with false promises?
Meet the “eco-Right,” the collection of lobbying, litigation, and activist nonprofits that identify themselves as free market yet who have bought the Left’s argument that the Earth is getting dangerously hot and we’re to blame. Groups like <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/political-party/clearpath-action-fund/">ClearPath</a>, <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/citizens-for-responsible-energy-solutions-cres/">Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions</a>, and the <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climate-leadership-council/">Climate Leadership Council</a> disagree over specific policies — some want a devastating carbon tax to reduce emissions, others want federal subsidies for expensive lithium batteries — but all want skeptical Republicans to compromise with uncompromising leftists on their global warming policies.
By doing so they threaten to undermine both affordable energy in America and the future of the conservative movement — which is why they’re often funded by the likes of <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/person/george-soros/">George Soros</a> as well as the <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/ford-foundation/">Ford</a> and <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/william-and-flora-hewlett-foundation/">Hewlett Foundations</a>.
My colleagues and I at the Capital Research Center first broke the news on the secret liberal mega-donors bankrolling the eco-Right in order to rebrand radical environmentalism as “conservative.” Our new report, <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/rise-of-the-eco-right/">Rise of the Eco-Right</a>, compiles years of research and investigative reporting to expose the funders, leadership, and lobbying of the eco-Right, exposing a web of overlapping boards and shared donors in service to a destructive and cynical agenda.
We’ve studied the professional Left for decades and are all too familiar with activists’ use of deception and misdirection to camouflage their agenda to the casual glance. Unlike Activism Inc., we believe that Americans should be free from fearmongering to listen to arguments from both sides and come to their own conclusions in the global warming debate. <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/rise-of-the-eco-right/">Rise of the Eco-Right</a> aims to make it clear that climate-conscious conservatives cannot compromise with the Left because activists aren’t interested in anything less than a “green” socialist revolution.
Don’t take my word for it — that’s the crux of an <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.influencewatch.org%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F12%2FGreen-New-Deal-Support-Letter-to-Congress-11.2019.pdf">open letter</a> to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signed by 263 activist groups in November 2019, urging Congress to pass the Green New Deal — arguably the most sweeping legislation ever proposed in America — to combat “increasing income/wealth inequality and rising white nationalism and neo-fascism” in America.
Today’s environmentalists are more interested in “environmental racism” and “restitution for Black and Indigenous farmers” than the environment, and they’re no longer hiding it behind the fig leaf of saving the planet from greenhouse gases.
Recall the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/">explanation</a> that Green New Deal author Saikat Chakrabarti gave to The Washington Post: “Do you guys think of [the Green New Deal] as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Here’s the bottom line: carbon taxes, “green” tech subsidies, and greenhouse gas pledges will never be enough for Big Green because the debate isn’t really about those things, but power. Activists know this, which is why they’ve abandoned these “market-friendly” proposals for the ultimate prize: the utopia of socialized medicine, federal jobs for everyone, slavery reparations, and more.
The eco-Right offers the Left a backdoor for the kind of statist policies that conservatives would never support — if they weren’t falsely labeled. It’s a siren’s song that promises free market answers to climate change but will only result in tyranny. Conservatives, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by listening to the eco-Right — so don’t give up the ship.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Hayden Ludwig is a senior investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center in Washington, DC.

AOC and Bernie Sanders

How The Left Is Spreading Global Warming Alarmism On The Right

Global Warming

Green New Deal

Imagine an education ecosystem where students get academic credit for taking piano lessons, attending courses at a science museum, or even playing AAU basketball. This is now a reality for families in New Hampshire, and policymakers in other states should pay close attention.
The Granite State’s trailblazing <a href="https://www.education.nh.gov/partners/education-outside-the-classroom/learning-everywhere">Learn Everywhere</a> program is<a href="https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2021/08/04/school-boards-watching-closely-as-learn-everywhere-gets-rolling/"> finally off the ground</a> despite <a href="https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2019-10-17/in-rare-move-n-h-lawmakers-delay-learn-everywhere-educational-program">state democrats’ and teacher unions’ previous efforts to kill it</a>. Originally passed in 2018, the policy allows students to earn academic credit for learning that happens outside of classroom walls.
Learn Everywhere is the brainchild of New Hampshire Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, who was <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/podcasts/ep-151-learn-everywhere-with-frank-edelblut/">inspired</a> by an after-school robotics program led by local engineers in Manchester. What Edelblut observed while watching that program is a rare sight in public education: kids buzzing with excitement and deeply engaged in substantive learning with members of their community.
Commissioner Edelbult was bothered by the fact that not all of them would get credit for this program under the state’s<a href="https://reachinghighernh.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Comparing-Extended-Learning-Opportunities-and-Learn-Everywhere-2.14.2019.pdf"> Extended Learning Opportunities</a> policy, which was deferential to school boards and thus at the mercy of local politics.
But thanks to Learn Everywhere, that’s all changing as districts are now required to accept credit for state-approved courses.
Under the program, both individuals and organizations — such as non-profits, tutors, and museums — can apply to the State Board of Education for approval. Applications are evaluated based on numerous factors, including provider qualifications, expected outcomes, and student assessment plans. The Department of Education will also conduct a monitoring visit before a full five-year approval is granted to providers.
This inclusive approach to credentialing could open up a world of possibilities for kids to earn school credit outside conventional classrooms. For example, a local orchestra could set up a music course or a computer programmer could teach kids how to code. Teachers are also free to create their own programs, which might be targeted to disadvantaged students or perhaps teach a skill they’re passionate about.
In December, the New Hampshire Academy of Science — an educational non-profit with professional-grade science equipment — was the first provider <a href="https://insidesources.com/board-of-ed-dems-reverse-course-back-first-learn-everywhere-program/">approved</a> and can now offer <a href="https://reachinghighernh.org/2020/12/14/nh-academy-of-science-becomes-approved-first-learn-everywhere-program/">several courses</a> for credit, including Physics Research and AP Biology. Since then, the State Board has also approved <a href="https://www.education.nh.gov/partners/education-outside-classroom/approved-learn-everywhere-programs">programs</a> offered by Seacoast Science Center, the math and reading education company Kumon, North Main Music, and others.
To be sure, Learn Everywhere’s policy isn’t perfect. One problem is that no portion of the state’s $19,283 in per-pupil education funding supports it, meaning families have to pay out of pocket for any program fees or rely on discounts if they can’t afford to.
But there are a few reasons why policymakers across the country would be wise to follow New Hampshire’s lead.
Most importantly, Learn Everywhere recognizes the critical role that communities play in educating kids and the program leverages the expertise of local artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, and others. <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-scholar-jay-greene-importance-field-trips/">Research</a> indicates that students benefit from culturally enriching field trips, which this model takes to a whole new level. While some of this learning is already taking place, a state-administered policy could help expand opportunities, and if the state were to allocate education dollars to the program it would ensure access for all kids.
Additionally, Learn Everywhere is designed for students who are still enrolled in public schools, which could help grow momentum for additional innovation within public K-12 education. Despite decades of expanding school choice policies, the vast majority of students in the U.S. are still enrolled in public schools. Providing these families with meaningful education options will only enlarge the political tent for reform-minded policymakers who need as much support as they can get.
Lastly, while Learn Everywhere doesn’t affect funding for New Hampshire school districts, it’s not hard to imagine how it could save money for schools or even taxpayers. When students are learning in the community, there’s less strain on staff, which could help free up time and resources for other uses. It’s also easy to see how rural districts that struggle with talent acquisition would benefit from tapping into the existing human capital in their communities.
Learn Everywhere is a glimpse into the future of a more personalized education system in which students are actively learning in their communities. State policymakers across the country should follow the Granite State’s lead and recognize that education is more than just direct instruction and textbooks — it can happen everywhere.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Aaron Garth Smith is the director of education reform at Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank advancing free minds and free markets.

Classroom

Kids Learn Everywhere

With less than two weeks to go until Election Day in the California recall, Gov. Gavin Newsom has carved out a more comfortable lead than voter surveys showed just two weeks ago, according to a new poll from the Trafalgar Group, a Republican firm.
The most <a href="https://thetrafalgargroup.org/CA-Recall-Full-Report-0831.pdf">recent poll</a>, conducted Aug. 26-29 among 1,088 likely voters, gives Newsom <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2021/governor/ca/2021-california-governor-recall-election-7360.html">a nearly eight-percentage-point margin</a> on the top-line question that will determine whether he remains in the governor’s mansion or is ousted by voters. It showed that 52% of Californians say they intend to vote no on whether to remove Newsom while 44.4% said they would vote yes, with just 3.7% remaining undecided. The poll has a margin of error of just below three percentage points.
Newsom has been facing a far more competitive challenge than expected in solidly blue California. Over the last month, the first-term governor has repeatedly pleaded for national Democratic Party help as polls showed a dead heat on the question of whether to remove him from office.
Initial plans for Vice President Kamala Harris to hold a rally this past Friday for Newsom were scrapped after news that 13 American service members and as many as 180 Afghans were killed in a terror attack at the Kabul airport. White House officials have said that President Biden will stump for Newsom, but time is running out, and it’s unclear whether those plans remain in the wake of the chaotic and deadly Afghanistan withdrawal.
On the second question, regarding whom voters would select as a replacement if Newsom were removed, the new Trafalgar poll shows conservative talk show host and surprise GOP frontrunner Larry Elder expanding his lead to 29% among the more than 40 certified candidates running. Previous polls showed Elder leading but with support hovering in the low 20% range.
The candidate with the next highest level of support is little-known Kevin Paffrath, a 29-year-old real estate broker who hosts a YouTube channel about personal finance, stocks, taxes, and real estate with 1.6 million subscribers. Paffrath is the only competitive Democrat in the mix to replace Newsom, who managed to prevent any high-ranking Democratic officials from challenging him. Paffrath has the support of 22% of likely recall voters, according to the Trafalgar poll.
The next tier of candidates, all Republicans, poll only in single-digit territory. Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and businessman and perennial political candidate John Cox are tied with 4.1% support, while reality TV personality and former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner is at 1.1%. Former GOP Rep. Doug Ose, who represented the Sacramento area in Congress for multiple terms, ended his campaign in mid-August after suffering a heart attack. Ose garnered just 0.2%.
The Trafalgar survey found that the race could still prove competitive between Paffrath and Elder if a majority of voters want Newsom ousted. Some 30.3% of those polled remain undecided on who they want as a potential replacement, and 9.1% indicated they would like to support “someone else.”
The poll’s partisan breakdown largely reflects the state’s registered voters. Trafalgar surveyed 48.1% likely Democratic voters, 25.7% Republicans and 26.2% of those selecting no party preference when registering. Democrats make up 46.5% of the California electorate while Republicans account for 24.2% and those expressing no party preference constitute 23.3%.
California GOP officials say Republicans remain highly motivated to remove Newsom after the governor instituted strict COVID stay-at-home orders and public school closures. But so far, Democrats are dominating in the all mail-in ballot election. (Every registered voter was sent a ballot to return by mail or at drop-off locations by Sept. 14.)
As of Wednesday morning, more than twice as many Democrats had voted than Republicans, with liberal regions of the state, such as the Bay Area, having the highest rate of returns, according to state officials and political data researchers. Nearly 4.7 million Californians had cast their ballots as of Wednesday morning, including 2.5 million Democrats compared to 1.1 million Republicans.
More Republicans distrust mail-in voting systems, and in the 2020 election, they were much more likely to vote in-person on Election Day. Recall organizers are pressing Republicans not to wait until the last minute to cast their votes despite that widespread distrust.
While the Democratic turnout advantage so far is an encouraging sign for Newsom, there are also red flags. Latino voters are underperforming expectations, the Los Angeles Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-09-01/mail-ballot-recall-newsom-elder-faulconer-kiley-cox-jenner">reported</a> Wednesday. While these voters constitute more than a quarter of the electorate, they make up less than a fifth of the people who have returned their ballots so far.
Republicans have been courting the Latino vote, with Elder and Faulconer airing Spanish-language ads. Elder also focused his message on Hispanics during a Wednesday press conference, advocating for school choice and blaming teacher unions for failing 6 million children who attend public school across the state, the majority of whom are Latino.
Citing statistics published by the California Department of Education, Elder said only 28% of Latino public school students meet or exceed state math standards while 60% of Latino students do not meet state reading standards.
“This is not acceptable,” he said.
Elder argued that families should “be able to embrace all the school-choice opportunities that will move Latino students forward, along with African American students, who suffer the same type of fate.”
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics&#8217; White House/national political correspondent.
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>.

Gavin Newsom

Poll: Newsom Opens Bigger Lead In Calif. Recall

California

Larry Elder

Amid surging crime in Pennsylvania’s largest cities, it remains unclear if Democratic leadership is up to the task of ensuring law and order.
Take Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, who faces intensifying criticism as the city grapples with a public safety crisis. This year, 137 children under age 18 have been shot in city neighborhoods, and 32 have died. “That’s a bullet ripping into a young person’s body every 40 hours,” <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/philadelphia-shootings-homicide-children-gun-memorial-mayor-kenney-helen-ubinas-20210819.html">wrote</a> the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Helen Ubiñas.
Last month, after a 15-year-old girl was <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-tioga-teen-girl-shot-20210817.html">shot</a> in the head in North Philadelphia (she died the next day), community activists called for Kenney to <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/crime/national-guard-mayor-kenney-gun-violence-stanley-crawford-jamal-johnson-police-20210818.html">deploy</a> the Pennsylvania National Guard in the crime-ridden city. Kenney, though, said it is not an “effective tool to bring in uniformed, camouflaged, gun-rifle-carrying people in helmets to address [the crime] problem.”
Recent <a href="https://6abc.com/philadelphia-crime-homicide-stats-philly-murders/6351850/">data</a> indicate that Philadelphia, where crime <a href="https://mikenutterllc.com/news/news-item/philadelphia-homicides-1960-2020">declined</a> in the early 2010s, is now the second-deadliest city in the United States behind Chicago. As the Philadelphia Inquirer recently <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/philadelphia-gun-violence-homicide-clearance-police-misconduct-20210823.html">put it</a>, “There’s only been one day so far this year – Jan. 2 – when not a single person was shot in the city.” The city experienced a <a href="https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/philadelphia-homicides-surge-hit-30-year-high-in-2020/article_0b9b8851-5aa1-5517-8b5a-5b93786fe7de.html">30-year homicide high</a> in 2020. So far this year, homicides are up more than 24% and shootings more than 25%, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadelphia-anticrime-activists-calls-for-national-guard-to-stem-the-violence-in-the-city-report">according</a> to data from the Philadelphia Police Department.
“The epidemic of gun violence in Philadelphia is out of control and our elected officials in the city need to step up and take responsibility,” said Nick Gerace, a retired longtime Philadelphia police officer and president of Protect Our Police PAC.
Prosecutions have fallen <a href="https://broadandliberty.com/2021/08/08/stop-phillys-cycle-of-violence-d-a-krasner-must-prosecute-gun-crimes/">dramatically</a> under Larry Krasner, the city’s progressive district attorney who has sparred with Kenney. As it stands, 65% of gun charges have been dismissed or withdrawn this year, marking a 17% increase since 2015. In 2015, there were 375 guilty pleas; in 2020, just 148.
Yet Kenney has deflected blame. In July, for example, the mayor sent a letter to a city council member who favors declaring the gun crisis an “emergency” <a href="https://archive.is/hJCxj#selection-559.160-559.237">and claimed</a> that doing so “is not a solution that will demonstrably change conditions in Philadelphia.”
Earlier this summer, after the City Council <a href="https://6abc.com/philadelphia-news-police-defund/6237686/">voted</a> to cut police funding by <a href="https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/06/18/philadelphia-city-council-approves-budget-33-million-cuts-police-department/">$33 million</a> for fiscal year 2021, the mayor <a href="https://6abc.com/philadelphia-news-philly-budget-cuts-pfd/6253506/">agreed</a> to eliminate a $19 million increase and cut <a href="https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/preliminary-philly-budget-reduces-police-funding-implements-reform/2437914/">existing</a> funding by $14 million.
Carlos Vega, a longtime assistant district attorney who unsuccessfully ran against Krasner in May’s Democratic primary, told me that the defund-the-police movement will fail.
“It’s communities of color being killed,” Vega said, observing how <a href="https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun-violence/#/2021">85%</a> of this year’s homicide victims are black. “People have not thought through the impact defund the police is going to have on communities who are suffering the most.”
Philadelphia is not alone among Pennsylvania cities in failing to stave off crime. Often overlooked amid the nationwide crime surge is Pittsburgh, in recent years considered the Rust Belt’s greatest urban success story.
Following <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/06/01/Pittsburgh-extends-curfew-protests-george-floyd/stories/202006010049">last summer’s riots</a>, homicides have about <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1018996709/rising-violent-crime-is-likely-to-present-a-political-challenge-for-democrats-in">doubled</a> in Pittsburgh in 2021 over the first six months. As recently as April, the city <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2021/04/19/Pittsburgh-surge-in-violence-2021-homicides-shootings/stories/202104190071">saw</a> a 90% surge in violence, with police officers pleading for more programs and funding. Young people <a href="https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/05/24/young-people-at-center-of-surge-in-violent-crime-in-allegheny-county/">continue</a> to fall victim to violence, and nonfatal shootings are up about 68%, <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2021/08/22/Pittsburgh-gun-violence-homicides-COVID-19/stories/202108220031">according</a> to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In late August, the University of Pittsburgh <a href="https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/08/29/university-of-pittsburgh-urge-caution-south-side/">warned</a> students about “violent criminal activity,” especially in the <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2021/08/20/south-side-pittsburgh-crime-east-carson-street-traffic-restrictions-bars-restaurants/stories/202108220028">popular South Side neighborhood</a>.
Still, earlier this year, Democratic Mayor Bill Peduto slashed the police budget by <a href="https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-police-mayoral-election-democratic-peduto-gainey-moreno-thompson/">$5.3 million</a>. Last summer, not long after a <a href="https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/man-arrested-near-mayor-pedutos-home-harassment-after-complaints-neighbors/5QZ2AL2JINE2LETNKTUZFGZ6QM/">disorderly demonstrator</a> was arrested near Peduto’s neighborhood – leading to <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/08/18/Pittsburgh-protest-arrest-plainclothes-police-officers-Mayor-Peduto-house/stories/202008180152">protests at his house</a> – the mayor <a href="https://pittsburghpa.gov/press-releases/press-releases/4241">acknowledged</a> the “right for people to take to the streets to demand much-needed reforms.”
But Peduto’s praise for protesters wasn’t enough to survive the city’s Democratic mayoral primary this past May. The more progressive Ed Gainey is poised to win his job in November.
Gainey, a state representative who earned endorsements from <a href="https://gaineyformayor.com/endorsements/">Democratic socialists</a> and a <a href="https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2021/02/20/ed-gainey-seiu-healthcare-pa-endorsement/">major</a> health care union, went so far as to <a href="https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-police-mayoral-election-democratic-peduto-gainey-moreno-thompson/">accuse</a> Peduto of “overpolicing” the city. He has pledged to “<a href="https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-police-mayoral-election-democratic-peduto-gainey-moreno-thompson/">redirect</a>” law enforcement funds to social services.
Pittsburgh’s GOP insiders see no end in sight to the city’s surging crime. Bob Hillen, chairman of the Republican Committee of Pittsburgh, thinks that far-left Democratic leadership under Gainey will continue to give crime a “free pass.”
“We could use more police on the streets right now,” Hillen told me. “I mean, every night there is a shooting. This is well out of hand. We have to do something quick.”
Other regional Republicans are more optimistic. When asked about getting the Steel City’s crime situation under control, Republican state Rep. Rob Mercuri of Allegheny County said, “We can do this if we work together in the Pittsburgh region.”
The GOP is strategizing on how to oust Democrats in a historically moderate state. The focus is on Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. “Bill Peduto and Jim Kenney are gaslighting and deflecting blame,” says Allie Carroll, spokeswoman for the state Republican National Committee.
Kenney is term-limited, with Philadelphia’s next mayoral race in 2022, while Gainey is primed to assume office in a city that hasn’t elected a Republican mayor in 88 years. So Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, two Democratic strongholds, find themselves in similar straits. Will their problems trigger a statewide political backlash?
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Gabe Kaminsky is a senior contributor for The Federalist. His work has appeared in RealClearPolitics, the New York Post, Fox News, and other outlets. Follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/Gabe__Kaminsky">Twitter</a>.

Jim Kenney

When Will PA Mayors Wake Up To The Crime Crisis?

Crime

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

The European Union has made its position on Iran abundantly clear. The <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-lawmakers-pan-decision-to-send-senior-diplomat-to-iran-for-raisi-inauguration/">attendance</a> of senior EU official Enrique Mora at the inauguration of Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi demonstrated that Brussels will pursue a policy of engagement with and concessions to the Islamic Republic rather than siding with the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom.
The EU occasionally pays lip service to the cause of human rights in Iran, but its policy has consistently empowered the Islamic Republic. European officials are loath to apply pressure on the regime, tolerate the assassination of exiled dissidents on European soil, and try to ignore events in Iran, including mass demonstrations, labor strikes, and the regime’s jailing and torture of opponents.
The goal of EU diplomacy is to revive at all costs the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Mora’s presence in Tehran underscores that message – he is Brussels’ point-man in Vienna, coordinating talks between the United States and Iran.
Mora’s conduct in Vienna and in Tehran has provided another shot in the arm to the Iranian regime’s effort to secure the legitimacy it does not warrant. Turnout reached a historic low in the transparently rigged election that elevated Raisi to the presidency. Voters knew their next president would be someone responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners.
At the inauguration, Mora was pictured <a href="https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/08/09/european-parliament-members-blast-eu-for-sending-diplomat-to-honor-inauguration-of-new-iranian-president/">sitting</a> among the leaders of several top terrorist groups including Hamas Chairman Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem. Mora also posed for friendly pictures with top regime officials such as Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Even in Vienna, Mora has shown more sympathy for Tehran than for its victims. In June, he <a href="https://www.jpost.com/international/outrage-over-austria-fm-alleged-ban-of-protest-against-iran-talks-671262">appeared</a> to approve the Austrian government’s prevention of peaceful Iranian dissidents from protesting outside the Grand Hotel Wien against the Iranian nuclear talks.
While the EU fears that holding Tehran accountable could undermine the current talks, the Islamic Republic has busied itself kidnapping German-Iranians, Austrian-Iranians, Swedish-Iranians, and British-Iranians to force additional concessions from European leaders.
This feebleness emboldens the regime in Tehran, giving it every reason to kidnap or even murder more dissidents in the West. Last December, the regime abducted and executed the French resident and Iranian dissident <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-iran-lured-a-dissident-from-france-to-his-execution/">Ruhollah Zam</a> after luring him to Iraq. Tehran hanged Zam for his work operating the Telegram channel called Amadnews that exposed widespread corruption within the regime.
The Biden administration did not take a position on Mora’s visit to Tehran when it should have issued a strong condemnation. Nor has Biden paused his own efforts to revive the nuclear deal despite the FBI uncovering Tehran’s plot to kidnap Iranian-American activist Masih Alinejad, a New York resident. Like the EU, the Biden administration has proven desperate to salvage the JCPOA.
Raisi and his master, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, can rest assured that there will be no price to pay for any violence they deem necessary to keep the regime in power, such as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-protests-specialreport/special-report-irans-leader-ordered-crackdown-on-unrest-do-whatever-it-takes-to-end-it-idUSKBN1YR0QR">gunning down</a> as many as 1,500 protesters during mass demonstrations in November 2019. Mora and his bosses prefer not to challenge a weakening and vulnerable yet dangerous Islamist regime.
Both the EU and the White House may soon realize that a return to the JCPOA and appeasing the regime are both losing strategies.
Raisi is likely to drive a harder bargain with the Biden administration in the nuclear talks, knowing that Tehran’s provocations, including its July 29 attack on the Mercer Street commercial tanker in the Gulf of Oman, will go unpunished. The regime is likely to see Mora’s visit and the West’s general passivity as a green light to continue its aggression at home and in the region.
If European leaders want to protect their own citizens and prevent terror attacks on European soil, they should swiftly sanction the officials and organizations involved in the hostage-taking and execution of EU and British citizens. They should also demand the immediate release of the surviving hostages as a pre-condition to the next round of nuclear talks in September.
It is time for U.S. and European leaders to recognize that an unconditional commitment to nuclear diplomacy led them to sacrifice their concern for human rights in Iran and even on their own soil. Yet this trade-off did not secure a better nuclear deal, or even a decent one. Instead, it encourages Iran to escalate its repression while demanding ever more concessions at the negotiating table.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Alireza Nader is a senior fellow focusing on Iran and U.S. policy in the Middle East at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (@FDD), where Benjamin Weinthal is a research fellow. Follow them on Twitter @AlirezaNader and @BenWeinthal. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. The views expressed are the author&#8217;s own.

Menu

RealClearWire