This week, Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Jerry McNerny, D-N.J., sent out a series of letters to America&#8217;s largest communications corporations: AT&amp;T, Alphabet Inc., Cox Communications, Dish Network, Comcast, Apple, Amazon and others. Their letters demanded answers from these corporations on one simple topic: Why would these platforms continue to allow the dissemination of &#8220;misinformation&#8221; from conservative outlets?
&#8220;Our country&#8217;s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies,&#8221; the House Democrats wrote. &#8220;These phenomena undergird the radicalization of seditious individuals who committed acts of insurrection on January 6th, and it contributes to a growing distrust of public health measures necessary to crush the pandemic. &#8230; Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN?&#8221;
The overt move by members of the government to cudgel private corporations into silencing unpopular viewpoints was clearly violative of First Amendment principles. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press; Democrats have now hit upon a convenient workaround where they bully private actors into doing their censorious bidding.
This clever gambit is rooted in the conflation between &#8220;disinformation&#8221; and &#8220;misinformation&#8221; promulgated by the establishment media since 2016. After the 2016 election, the media went berserk with the theory that Hillary Clinton had lost the election thanks only to Russian interference. &#8220;Russian disinformation&#8221; — meaning false information promulgated by a foreign government for the purpose of interfering in domestic politics — had twisted the election. Now even disinformation promulgated on American soil is protected by the First Amendment. But it soon became clear that the authoritarian left wasn&#8217;t interested merely in active disinformation springing from foreign sources. It was troubled by any narrative or information that contradicted its point of view . This information could quickly and easily be labeled &#8220;misinformation.&#8221;
And &#8220;misinformation,&#8221; it said, had to be policed.
Why, precisely, wouldn&#8217;t the answer to misinformation be factual rebuttal? Because, the authoritarian left argued, misinformation led to &#8220;incitement.&#8221; Now, there is a legal standard for &#8220;incitement&#8221; — and it&#8217;s a high bar to reach. But the authoritarian left has broadened out the meaning of incitement to include any verbiage that elicits strong emotions &#8230; so long as conservatives are responsible for such verbiage. Thus, it&#8217;s possible incitement to call people by their biological pronouns but perfectly innocent fun to wink and nod at widespread looting and rioting.
The answer to &#8220;misinformation&#8221; and &#8220;incitement,&#8221; however, can&#8217;t lie within government. So Democrats have turned toward hijacking the private instruments of informational dissemination, all in the name of reestablishing an informational monopoly the left lost with the death of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and with a monopoly that collapsed completely with the rise of the open internet.
And corporations are going along with all of this. This week, Amazon banned a book on transgender people, &#8220;When Harry Became Sally,&#8221; presumably because it took a non-woke line on the subject. Coca-Cola is now apparently indoctrinating its employees into the cult of Robin DiAngelo &#8220;anti-racism.&#8221; Facebook and Twitter and Google are all preparing new measures aimed at cracking down on &#8220;misinformation&#8221; — opaque guidelines and non-rigorous standards that will surely cut in favor of the same establishment media now pushing censorship, and the Democrats they support.
The establishment media are fond of saying that we&#8217;re experiencing a crisis of authoritarianism in America; they point to the criminal acts of Jan. 6 and suggest that right-wing authoritarianism threatens democracy itself. The far greater threat to democracy, however, lies with an authoritarian left that is now ascendant in virtually every powerful institution in America.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-time-to-uncancel-americans">More from Ben Shapiro: It&#8217;s Time To Uncancel Americans</a>
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Capitol Storm

SHAPIRO: The Authoritarian Left Is On The March

Censorship

Free Speech

Leftism

This week, Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Jerry McNerny, D-N.J., sent out a series of letters to America&#039;s largest communications

description

noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

robots

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-the-authoritarian-left-is-on-the-march/

twitter:card

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-451874300.jpg

twitter:image

Joe Biden

Racism

Education

Donald Trump

Gender

Candace Owens

Censorship by Big Tech companies is becoming a growing reality for conservatives in the United States.
Following the January 6 riot at the United States Capitol, Twitter permanently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-confirms-ban-on-trump-permanent-even-if-he-runs-in-2024">banned</a> President Donald Trump, with Twitter CFO Ned Segal later confirming that he would continue to be barred from the platform even if he decides to run for a second term in the White House.
More recently, the social media giant <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/steven-crowder-temporarily-suspended-from-twitter-over-voter-fraud-post">suspended</a> conservative commentator Steven Crowder from his account after he detailed instances of potential voter fraud. The tweet received a warning label explaining that users could not like or retweet the post “due to a risk of violence.”
Twitter’s censorship is not limited to individual pundits, though. Less than twenty-four hours after suspending Crowder, the platform placed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-places-alert-on-cpac-link">warning</a> on the link for the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The alert stated that the link is “potentially spammy or unsafe.”
Some argue that technology firms have the right to moderate their own platforms. Others argue that given technology firms’ status as de-facto gatekeepers to the public square, censorship is a pressing threat to free speech under the First Amendment. 
In response, several states are beginning to propose legislation that would penalize Big Tech companies for censorship. Here are four examples.
Florida
Republicans in the Sunshine State drafted legislation that would fine technology companies who de-platform users.
Under the Florida House of Representatives’ new <a href="https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&amp;CommitteeId=3098&amp;Session=2021&amp;DocumentType=General+Publications&amp;FileName=Technology+Transparency+-+TTA+-+Press+Conference+Draft+02-02-21.pdf">bill</a>, technology companies who censor candidates for public office could be fined up to $100,000. Users would also be allowed to opt out of content algorithms and bring legal action against firms.
“What began as a group of upstart technology companies from the west coast has since transformed into an industry of monopoly communications platforms that monitor, influence, and control the flow of information in our country and among our citizens,” said Gov. DeSantis (R-FL) at a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Y_CWi_xfE&amp;feature=youtu.be">press conference</a> in early February. “These platforms have played an increasingly decisive role in elections and have negatively impacted Americans who dissent from orthodoxies favored by the big tech cartel.”
“Used to be that consumers were trusted to make their own decisions about what information to consume, about which leaders to ‘follow,’ about what news to watch,” added the governor. “Now those decisions are increasingly made by nameless, faceless boards of censors.”
Texas
The Lone Star State is joining Florida in efforts to prevent social media giants from de-platforming users.
During an interview with <a href="https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/texas-politics/these-three-bills-heading-to-the-state-legislature-will-get-texas-talking/287-789a1153-9a8e-4680-8158-02de3deebc06">Inside Texas Politics</a>, Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-TX) explained that “the bill we’re getting ready to file will say that if a company discriminates against you, if the platform blocks or kicks you off based on your viewpoint, based on your politics or religion based on viewpoint discrimination, it will give you a way to get back online.”
“The bill we had last time looked at different options for bringing suit,” continued Sen. Hughes. “What we would like to do is to give any Texan who’s being discriminated against, the option to bring an action. We think that will get Facebook’s attention, get Twitter’s attention, and cause them to start treating Texans fairly.”
Sen. Hughes is <a href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1358529745026244612?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1358529745026244612%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhumanevents.com%2F2021%2F02%2F08%2Ffollow-the-leader-texas-following-florida-drafting-bill-to-combat-big-tech-censorship%2F">working</a> with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) on the legislation.
Arizona
Legislators in Arizona proposed similar legislation to protect social media users’ political and religious speech.
The “Stop Social Media Censorship Act,” <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/bills/sb1428p.pdf">sponsored</a> by Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-AZ), would levy $75,000 fines against technology companies for each instance of de-platforming.
“This bill was requested prior to the most recent assault on conservatives,” <a href="https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2021/01/10/townsend-hopes-to-curb-big-tech-power-with-stop-social-media-censorship-act/">explained</a> Rep. Townsend, “but its time has definitely come, nevertheless. The Silicon Valley lobby will no doubt come out in full force to kill it, but I believe the public’s patience has expired and we need to push this across the finish line.”
The legislation also bars technology companies from participating in “shadow ban” tactics, which involve “blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from an online community so that it is not readily apparent to the user that the user has been banned.”
Minnesota
Five state senators in Minnesota proposed similar legislation to prevent “online content discrimination.”
The <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1253&amp;version=latest&amp;session=ls92&amp;session_year=2021&amp;session_number=0">bill</a> states that it is an “unlawful discriminatory practice for an owner, operator, or provider of an interactive computer service to restrict, either directly, manually, or through the use of an algorithm, a user’s account or content based on race, sex, political ideology, or religious beliefs.” 
A citizen who prevails in a lawsuit against an “interactive computer service” that engages in illegal citizenship would be eligible to receive $50,000 per incident.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

These Four States Are Fighting Big Tech Censorship

Big Tech

Readers Pass

Social Media Censorship

Censorship by Big Tech companies is becoming a growing reality for conservatives in the United States. Following the January 6 riot at the United States

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/these-four-states-are-fighting-big-tech-censorship/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-851281280-1200x800.jpg

President Biden campaigned for the White House on the most pro-abortion platform in modern history. The 46th President’s healthcare <a href="https://joebiden.com/healthcare/">platform</a> included a promise to expand access to government funded contraception and protect the “constitutional right to an abortion.” He pledged to reverse President Trump’s “all-out assault on women’s right to choose” by restoring taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood and codifying Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, within the first days of his administration, Biden signed an executive action to “immediately” rescind the Mexico City Policy, which prevents overseas organizations or foreign governments from using American tax dollars to promote abortion. A <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/28/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-orders-strengthening-americans-access-to-quality-affordable-health-care/">fact sheet</a> from the White House said the measure was meant to “protect and expand access to comprehensive reproductive health care.”
Accordingly, former Congressman and California Attorney General <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-pick-for-health-and-human-services-has-no-experience-in-health-or-human-services">Xavier Becerra</a> — President Biden’s choice to lead the United States Department of Health and Human Services — is among the most zealously pro-abortion politicians in the Democratic Party.
Here are five things you need to know about Becerra’s record on abortion.
Supported Partial-Birth Abortion
During Becerra’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) asked for an explanation on his opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion.
“There’s a division in our country with regards to the issue of abortion, of course as you know. Mainstream Republicans, mainstream Democrats disagree, but most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-health-secretary-nominee-on-opposing-ban-on-late-term-abortion-we-can-find-some-common-ground">asked</a> Sen. Romney.
Becerra gave an indirect response: “So, senator, here I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue, and I respect that. I have worked, as I mentioned, for decades trying to protect the health of men and women, young and old. And as attorney general, my job has been to follow the law and make sure others are following the law.”
“I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial-birth abortion, it sounds like we are not going to reach common ground there,” Romney responded.
In 2003, then-Representative Becerra <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-senators-question-becerra-qualifications-partial-birth-abortion-vote">voted</a> against legislation that would institute a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, a graphic procedure in which a doctor removes an unborn baby from his or her mother’s womb and ends their life, often by crushing his or her skull.
Opposed Little Sisters of the Poor
As Attorney General of California, Becerra filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to restore a federal mandate that would compel healthcare insurers to provide contraception coverage despite religious objections. The Obama administration leveraged the same mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor in 2011.
“Donald Trump wants businesses and corporations to control family planning decisions rather than a woman in consultation with her doctor. These anti-women&#8217;s health regulations prove once again that the Trump Administration is willing to trample on people’s rights,” said Attorney General Becerra in a 2017 California Department of Justice <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-challenge-trump-administration-over-contraceptive">press release</a>. “What group of Americans will they target next? Will they allow businesses to deny you cancer treatment? Will they exclude you from insurance coverage because of a pre-existing health condition? The California Department of Justice will fight to protect every woman’s right to healthcare, including reproductive healthcare. We&#8217;ll see the Trump Administration in court.”
Four years later, however, Becerra <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-ben-sasse-grills-biden-hhs-nominee-xavier-becerra-appears-to-trap-him-on-final-question">insisted</a> to the Senate that he “never sued any nuns.”
“Mr. Becerra, you said a little while ago that you never sued the nuns, which is a pretty interesting way of reframing your bullying,” pointed out Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). “You actually sued the federal government who had given an exemption to the nuns. Can you explain to us what the Little Sisters of the Poor were doing wrong?”
Becerra repeatedly provided nonspecific answers before Sen. Sasse moved onto a new question.
Prosecuted Pro-Life Activists
Becerra brought fifteen criminal charges against pro-life individuals who obtained undercover video footage appearing to prove that Planned Parenthood sells the remains of aborted babies.
“The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-xavier-becerra-announces-charges-filed-against-david-robert">said</a> Becerra in 2017. “We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.”
A few years earlier, however, the California Department of Justice <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/california-pro-life-journalists-felony-counts-planned-parenthood-videos/">turned</a> a blind eye toward animal rights activists who had also violated California’s two-party consent rules — a double standard that Sen. Sasse invoked during Becerra’s confirmation hearing.
“Former abortion industry employees, employees from your state have claimed on camera that babies who survived abortions were left to die by Planned Parenthood staff in your state in clear violation of both state and federal law,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-ben-sasse-grills-biden-hhs-nominee-xavier-becerra-appears-to-trap-him-on-final-question">noted</a> the Nebraska lawmaker. “Instead of investigating these claims, you raided the houses of the filmmakers who brought these atrocities to light. Why did you do that?”
“Senator, again, I respect the way you framed it. I would say to you that it’s clear that we have to look at it differently,” responded Becerra. “California has privacy laws, and we enforce privacy laws. When we take action based on violation of privacy laws, it’s because we have evidence that the rights of Californians to their privacy has been violated. You’ve described it differently. But what I will say to you is my job is to follow the law and make sure others do as well.”
Voted Down Hyde Amendment
During his first year in Congress, Becerra <a href="https://www.sba-list.org/becerra">voted</a> against the Hyde amendment — a federal provision stating that Medicare dollars cannot be used for abortions.
Before the Hyde amendment took effect in 1980, the federal government <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121402281?storyId=121402281">used</a> taxpayer funds to pay for roughly 300,000 abortions annually. 
Like his Health and Human Services nominee, President Biden’s campaign platform <a href="https://joebiden.com/healthcare/">states</a> that he “supports repealing the Hyde Amendment,” because healthcare “is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income.”
Earned Perfect Rating From Planned Parenthood
Due to his three decades of using public office to support abortion, Becerra <a href="https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/26754/xavier-becerra">received</a> a perfect rating from Planned Parenthood — a multibillion-dollar nonprofit that executes one-third of abortions in the United States.
Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/katieyoder/2021/02/24/planned-parenthoods-new-report-reveals-more-than-86-million-abortions-n2585171">report</a> reveals that the organization carried out 354,871 abortions in the last fiscal year. In spite of the Trump administration’s pro-life actions and the COVID-19 pandemic, Planned Parenthood’s abortion tally reached record highs.
Planned Parenthood has also spent millions lobbying the federal government, including nearly $900,000 in 2020, according to data compiled by <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/planned-parenthood/lobbying?id=D000000591">Open Secrets</a>.
Becerra likewise received perfect ratings from Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He received “0%” ratings from the National Right to Life Committee, the Family Research Council, and other pro-life organizations.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

House Speaker Pelosi And Senator Schumer Hold News Conference On DACA Case

‘A Perfect Rating From Planned Parenthood’: 5 Things To Know About Biden HHS Nominee’s Abortion Record

Abortion

Biden Administration

pro-life

President Biden campaigned for the White House on the most pro-abortion platform in modern history. The 46th President’s healthcare platform included a

&#039;A Perfect Rating From Planned Parenthood&#039;: 5 Things To Know About Biden HHS Nominee&#039;s Abortion Record

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/a-perfect-rating-from-planned-parenthood-5-things-to-know-about-biden-hhs-nominees-abortion-record/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1182036494.jpg

Bill Gates is best known as the co-founder of Microsoft and one of the wealthiest men in the world. However, with his recent book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” advocating for the use of entirely synthetic beef, Gates has become an increasingly influential force in a new realm: politics.
Notably, 88.8% of his individual <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Bill+Gates">contributions</a> to Political Action Committees (PACs) or directly to political candidates were made in the fall of 2020. While his donations were made to both sides of the aisle, the sudden spike in his political activity has sparked some added interest. In order to understand the development of the Gates we know today, it’s important to take a step back.
In 2000, Bill and his wife founded the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation/">original</a> goal of the foundation was to provide funding for poorer communities and provide scholarships for students. Since then, it has evolved into a philanthropic organization that helps impoverished countries dealing with educational, environmental, and humanitarian issues.
Over the years, the BMGF has <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Warren-Buffett">received</a> endowments from many prominent entrepreneurs, such as its third trustee Warren Buffet, and is now <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/?list=billionaires&amp;sh=2f4a0818689f">reported</a> to be the largest private charitable foundation in the world. 
Undoubtedly, the organization has donated to admirable causes and provided countless impoverished individuals with valuable opportunities. However, the charity has been also been an agent advocating for centralized and universal reforms, which detractors view as having caused more harm than good.
When it comes to education, Gates was at the forefront of efforts regarding “Common Core” during the Obama administration. The Common Core was an initiative designed to <a href="http://www.corestandards.org/">standardize</a> language, arts, and mathematics courses for K-12 students around the nation. While it has been implemented in all but nine states, it has proven to be a colossal failure. As the Federalist <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/first-common-core-high-school-grads-worst-prepared-for-college-in-15-years/">reported</a>, “The class of 2019, the first to experience all four high school years under the Common Core, is the worst-prepared for college in 15 years.” Gates himself even <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/Education/Council-of-Great-City-Schools">admitted</a> that the results were not what he wanted them to be, saying not enough action was taken. 
More recently, The Washington Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-behind-anti-racist-math-push/">reported</a> that the Gates Foundation has donated more than $140 million to organizations promoting “anti-racist” math education, such as “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” This organization makes multiple controversial and unsubstantiated <a href="https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf">claims</a>, with one being that the act of focusing on obtaining the correct answer is an example of white supremacy. Nevertheless, the BMGF are explicitly <a href="https://equitablemath.org/">thanked</a> for their “generous financial support” on the company’s website.
With the mission of the foundation clearly aligning with liberal or left-leaning ideology, the personnel emulate these same values. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 81.4% of all <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/bill-melinda-gates-foundation/totals?id=D000031958">donations</a> from affiliates of the BMGF were to Democrats during the past election cycle, with the total differential between the two parties being $703,172. Furthermore, <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Global-Policy-and-Advocacy/Rob-Nabors">some</a> of the organization’s leadership <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Gargee-Ghosh">positions</a> are held by former Obama staffers.
While Gates has not declared himself to be either a Republican or a Democrat, he has given millions of dollars to liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, where his father <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/bill-gates-sr-father-microsoft-founder-dies-94-73033685">was</a> an active board member. From 2010-2013, BMGF <a href="https://www.mrc.org/articles/planned-parenthood%25E2%2580%2599s-biggest-donors-give-374-million-four-years">donated</a> over $14.5 million to Planned Parenthood, making them one of the company’s largest donors.
Other examples of Gates’ donations include efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change. In 2019 alone, the BMGF <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-commits-310-million-for-climate-adaptation-action">pledged</a> $310 million to the Global Commission on Adaption to take “climate action.” Gates’ efforts on the matter began in 2006 when he founded TerraPower, a company researching methods to produce more “environmental-friendly” nuclear energy.
Since then, Gates has <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/02/10/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-climate-change-gender-equality-focus/">stated</a> that climate change will be a priority for the BMGF moving forward. He is also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/bill-gates-says-we-need-more-elon-musks-to-tackle-climate-change.html">urging</a> other wealthy individuals to follow in the steps of Elon Musk and begin focusing on eco-friendly projects.
In addition, Gates’s foundation also wields significant influence on the world stage, with the BMGF reportedly <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/gates-foundation-criticism">spending</a> more on global health than the World Health Organization.
Domestically, Bill Gates has recently become the largest owner of farmland in the United States, with American farmers <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bill-gates-and-neo-feudalism-a-closer-look-at-farmer-bill">expressing</a> concern while referencing Gates’ impact on agriculture in India and Mexico. 
As the BMGF’s website states, one of its six divisions is dedicated to promoting public policy with foreign governments. They have worked with prominent countries <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do">including</a> China and India, as well as smaller, more agriculturally based countries such as Ethiopia. However, the foundation’s interventions have not always led to positive results.
BMGF <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bill-gates-and-neo-feudalism-a-closer-look-at-farmer-bill">reportedly</a> spent $4.9 billion forcing African countries to abandon their established farming methods and use GMO agriculture techniques attempted in the United States. In the 18 African countries where this methodology was applied, hunger <a href="https://www.rosalux.de/en/publication/id/42635/false-promises-the-alliance-for-a-green-revolution-in-africa-agra">increased</a> by 30% with the total number of people experiencing hunger rising by approximately 30 million.
The majority of Gates’ activism has come through his philanthropy and donations, but in recent years, Gates has also made controversial political statements.
In early 2019, Gates <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/bill-gates-americas-tax-system-is-not-fair.html">proposed</a> raising the estate tax, which deals with the transfer of property after death, as well as the capital gains tax, which pertains to assets sold for a higher price than their purchasing price. Ultimately, he believes the United States needs a more progressive tax system.
Gates also started a <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/podcast">podcast</a> in December of 2020 with actress Rashida Jones, where the two pose questions dealing with societal and cultural matters such as inequality and climate change.
It may be that he has become more comfortable when it comes to speaking his mind, or perhaps he has been forced into the political spotlight because of the nature of his charity. However, regardless of intent, Gates has evolved into an extremely influential and powerful political force, with the ability to influence policies worldwide.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Bill Gates

The Political Activism And Influence of Bill Gates

Bill Gates is best known as the co-founder of Microsoft and one of the wealthiest men in the world. However, with his recent book, “How to Avoid a Climate

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/the-political-activism-and-influence-of-bill-gates/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-948065752-1200x800.jpg

On February 23, The New York Times reported that failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was partnering with Louise Penny to write a political “thriller.”
The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/books/hillary-clinton-louise-penny-state-of-terror.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur">book</a>, aptly titled “State of Terror,” is set for release in October, and is “about a secretary of state confronting terrorism threats and a weakened nation.” Again, this is a political thriller, not an ironic comedy.
Clinton announced the book on her Twitter account, with an uncharacteristically amusing satirical tone&#8230;one can only hope. “My first work of fiction, but drawing from some life experience!” she wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
My first work of fiction, but drawing from some life experience! <a href="https://t.co/IkN0PhU7Tu">https://t.co/IkN0PhU7Tu</a>
&mdash; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1364643936678084612?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 24, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Let’s take a trip down memory lane and remind Clinton of her many, many, many works of fiction which preceded “State of Terror.”
Emails
Just on the subject of “Hillary Clinton’s emails,” she told a barrage of lies. She <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/247141-hillary-fires-back-on-emails-everything-i-did-was">claimed</a> that she had “turned over everything I was obligated to turn over,” with FBI Director James Comey saying that the FBI “discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014.”
Comey also refuted her false claims that there was “no classified material” in her private emails, that there was nothing “classified at the time,” and that there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails.
She then lied about Comey’s conclusion, saying on national television that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.” The Washington Post gave this particular <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/">lie</a> “Four Pinocchios.” 
Benghazi
Clinton lied repeatedly regarding the attack on two American government facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. On the evening of the attack, she released a statement which blamed an anti-Muslim video for the attack.
<blockquote>“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”</blockquote>
Approximately one hour later, Clinton <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/chelsea-clinton-diane-reynolds-secret-email-115786">emailed</a> an alias account owned by her daughter, Chelsea, saying “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” The email was uncovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. 
The next day, Clinton said “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest,” while speaking with the Egyptian prime minister. In the days that followed, she made <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/">repeated</a> references to this video, and on September 14, at the “transfer of remains ceremony marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed in Benghazi,” Clinton <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/secretary-of-state-hillary-clintons-remarks-at-transfer-of-remains-ceremony-for-americans-killed-in-libya-transcript/2012/09/14/54fc64c0-fea2-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html">blamed</a> their deaths on “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
On October 15, Clinton excused her falsehood by blaming the “fog of war.”
Sniper Fire
While campaigning for president in 2008, Clinton falsely <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bosnia-sniper-fire-2016-6">claimed</a> that she landed “under sniper fire” during a trip to Bosnia in 1996. Speaking at George Washington University in March 2008, she said “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” The Washington Post later shared a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/">video</a> debunking her claim, showing her being greeted by Bosnian officials. Among the welcome party was 8-year-old Emina Bicakcic, who told Clinton “There is peace now.”
Family History
In 2015, Clinton said that “all my grandparents” immigrated to the United States, and so she could relate to illegal immigrants. Buzzfeed News later <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-wrong-on-familys-immigration-history-records#.gm5d7pMax">reported</a> that three of Clinton’s grandparents were born in the United States.
A Clinton spokesman defended the lie, saying that Clinton’s “grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”
Travelgate
After employees of the White House Travel Office were fired in May 1993, Clinton later gave a deposition under oath to the Independent Counsel in which she denied having a role in the firings. A memo was uncovered later which said that there would be “hell to pay” if those responsible “failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.”
Wisconsin
On two occasions, Clinton received a “Pants On Fire!” rating from Politifact as she made accusations of electoral impropriety. 
On March 3, 2019, she <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/06/hillary-clinton/clinton-hot-seat-claim-thousands-were-turned-away-/">said</a> in Wisconsin, because a key provision of the Voting Rights Act was not in effect, “somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls (in 2016) because of the color of their skin” and other factors.
On September 17, 2019, she <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-wrong-again-wisconsin-voter-id/">said</a> that between 27,000 and 200,000 Wisconsinites were “turned away” from the polls in 2017 due to lack of proper identification.
Dead Broke
On June 9, 2014, Clinton said “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” during an interview on ABC.
“We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard,” she added.
While the Clinton’s federal disclosure form in 2000 shows them in debt, this did not include homes for personal use, such as the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/">two homes</a> the pair owned, including a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, New York and a seven-bedroom house in Washington, D.C. priced at $2.85 million, bought just as they were leaving the White House.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
While Clinton claimed that she opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as Obama’s secretary of state she <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/tpp-what-you-need-to-know/index.html">praised</a> it as setting “the gold standard in trade agreements.” Leaked excerpts of speeches given by Clinton also <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-229381">showed</a> that “she thought of the Asia-Pacific pact at the time and even reveal[ed] her hopes of tearing down trade barriers throughout the Western Hemisphere.”
Chelsea Clinton Downtown in 9/11
According to the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/where-was-chelsea-911-story-greg-pollowitz/">National Review</a>, “Clinton told NBC’s &#8216;Dateline&#8217; that Chelsea had been jogging near the World Trade Center, out for a cup of coffee, when the first plane hit.”
However, “Chelsea, writing a first-hand account in the defunct Talk magazine, later revealed that she was watching TV in a pal’s apartment on Park Avenue South.”
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Says She’s Writing Her ‘First Work Of Fiction.’ She Must Have Forgotten This Long List Of Lies.

Benghazi

On February 23, The New York Times reported that failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was partnering with Louise Penny to write a

Hillary Clinton Says She&#039;s Writing Her ‘First Work Of Fiction.’ She Must Have Forgotten This Long List Of Lies.

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-shes-writing-her-first-work-of-fiction-she-must-have-forgotten-this-long-list-of-lies/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-691299880-1200x800.jpg

twitter:creator

As a rule, I will defend public school teachers in almost every case. As a former public school teacher myself, I too have been in the trenches, where I experienced some truly exquisite misery. If it weren&#8217;t for the fleeting moments of pure joy, or the fairly regular episodes of side-splitting hilarity, or the really good kids whose miraculous maturity allows them to bear witness to an adult’s backbreaking labor of love, no one on planet earth could be convinced to teach public school. No one. So when I say I understand how hard teachers work, I really do. And as a registered nurse who spent most of 2020 on the frontlines dealing with Covid-stricken patients, I think I understand what it means to put oneself in harm’s way. 
My reverence for teachers makes it incredibly hard to lay any strong request or criticism at their feet. But today I must: Teachers, it is incumbent on you to stand up to your unions and demand to return to school. Not because you want to (lordy I don’t blame you if you don’t), but because the kids need you, parents need you, and because, at this point, there is not even a wispy-thin loin cloth of an excuse not to. 
The CDC is resoundingly clear. Per their <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html">February 12th release</a>: “in-person learning in schools has not been associated with substantial community transmission.” 
There were indications that schools were not significant vectors for community spread as early as last spring, with robust evidence emerging in medical journals by midsummer. It is now almost March. 
Let me just say, I get it. As someone who, years later, still has nightmares about my early teaching days (struggling to manage a classroom of 37 preteen boys, in north Memphis, as I begged them to care about pre-algebra), I sympathize. If a fluky scenario somehow had required me to take a break from in-person teaching, I would have clung to that excuse with a desperate vice-like clench. If the union whispered in my ear that it was best, noble even, for me to stay at home, it would have been deeply seductive. I pass no judgment on the teachers who are burned out enough to have been seduced. 
However, I’m here to break the news that this is getting ridiculous. Embarrassing even. 
Despite your valiant efforts to adjust to zoom, the stubborn fact remains that your service is not being fully rendered, and the rest of us are suffering, and needlessly so. Cases are plummeting — <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/graphics/graphic-tracking-coronavirus-infections-us">dropping by over 20% for the fifth straight week</a>. Schools have been deemed by health officials as relatively safe. Most importantly, <a href="https://edsource.org/2020/student-anxiety-depression-increasing-during-school-closures-survey-finds/631224">your students are suffering</a>. We all want to start living again, and we are waiting, largely, on you. 
Teachers are tougher than this. It needs to stop. 
Rest assured, I am not preaching from the safety of a sequestered home office, but rather as an emergency RN who, no doubt, inhaled loads of the little beasties last year on a daily basis starting in March. I spent the entirety of 2020 on the front line in a busy ER in Los Angeles, during which time I worked with hundreds of covid patients. In all that time, I personally did not treat a single child sickened by Covid. In August I treated one father who may have been infected by his asymptomatic 10-year-old child. Anecdotal? Yes. However, my experience correlates with virtually all of the known research which, again, began appearing as early as spring of 2020. That we are discussing this now, well into the spring semester of 2021, is absurd.
Like tens of millions of “essential workers” (a term I loath, but I digress), I donned a mask and jumped in without hesitation each day during the height of the pandemic. Like my medical colleagues, I didn’t hesitate to lean in and put my hands on an infectious coughing patient, because their care was my duty, and the science assured me my risk was low. If an inexpensive, government-issued N-95 mask allowed my colleagues and I to do our jobs safely for months on end, I can&#8217;t think of a single reason why a teacher, in the same mask, working at a 6-foot distance, with a very low-risk population, in a setting which copious research suggests is safe, couldn&#8217;t do the same. I must admit, I chuckle even imagining a teacher wearing an N-95. Us nurses don’t even wear them with non-Covid patients in the emergency department, let alone non-medical settings, but if that’s what it takes, then by all means.
Demographically, nurses and teachers are virtually identical. Professionally, both are essential for societal function. And neither, I can personally attest, fill their ranks with cowards. The fact that one of these groups, that with the demonstrably lower risk, has been allowed to hold society hostage until we accommodate their every request, while the other has soldiered on without skipping a beat, is a circle I cannot square. I’m struck, as this level of princess behavior is utterly inconsistent with what I know to be the fortitude of the average teacher. 
In reality, my frustration isn’t truly with teachers. It rests firmly with the teachers unions that only obliquely represent the teachers they purport to serve. It is the unions that are fueling hysteria among their ranks, and doing so for nakedly political reasons, as is obvious to anyone who takes the time to research their demands. Many teachers are simply caught in the crosshairs of dueling loyalties. I would never waste my time appealing to the unions to do what’s right for students and parents because they have shown time and again that they are shockingly callous to the wellbeing of students and parents. However, it is well worth my time to appeal to teachers, because teachers genuinely do care about students and parents. 
So teachers, I am speaking directly to you. I implore you, please stand up for what’s right. Please restore the reputation of your noble profession. Please demand an end to this hostage situation. 
Georgia Howe is a columnist, podcast host and registered nurse. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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 elementary classroom.

Teachers, Please End This Hostage Situation.

Coronavirus

COVID-19

Teachers Union

As a rule, I will defend public school teachers in almost every case. As a former public school teacher myself, I too have been in the trenches, where I

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/teachers-please-end-this-hostage-situation/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Empty-Classroom-1200x800.jpg

Keri Smith isn’t proud of her role in bringing social justice comedy to the masses.
Smith helped secured a slot on FX for 2012’s “Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell,” a late-night show that slammed “The Simpsons’” Apu as racist and wondered if comedians could ever tell jokes about rape.
“Part of the reason I enjoyed working with comedians was because I liked the idea of pushing my belief system through humor,” she said.
“Totally Biased,” like Smith at the time, was woke years before the term engulfed the culture.
It took time, but she eventually saw social justice for what she says it truly is, a religious dogma that treats people differently based on their skin color. 
Smith now excoriates social justice tropes on “Unsafe Space,” her long-running podcast with co-host Carter Laren. Together, the duo examines the latest Cancel Culture headlines and the forces shoving it into our cultural institutions. The podcast boasts 35,000 subscribers, allowing Smith to fight back against the rising tide of woke culture.
Smith never set out to be part of the comedy ecosystem. She studied biological anthropology and anatomy at Duke University but took a few years off to save money for graduate school.
She saw a job posting to join Margaret Cho’s management team on a “feminist message board” and applied on a whim. The gig became her introduction into the world of professional comedy.
She learned the necessary management skills on the fly. She massaged business relationships, learned novel ways for comics to earn money and plotted comedy albums and tours for clients.
All the while she marinated in the growing social justice movement.
“By the time I was able to start my own company, I could choose which comedians to work with, ones who shared my ideology,” she says, including clients like stand-up Kristina Wong, with whom she remains friends despite their differences. “Sometime after that it became culturally dominant.”
Comedians began introducing woke elements into their act, even those who seemed an unlikely fit for that material.
“Jim Jefferies is suddenly doing woke material and almost preaching to people from a moral superiority position,” she says with a laugh. “I prefer the true believers.”
Smith’s own belief system started to change while she was hammering out opportunities for her woke clientele. That proved “problematic” in the truest sense of the word.
“I had built my career within this niche. I was known as the feminist manager,” she says. “When my beliefs started changing I was afraid to say anything. For six months I kept my thoughts to myself.” 
She couldn’t stay silent forever.
“I became more afraid of the consequences of not speaking,” she says. “By speaking I knew I’d lose a lot of those connections and friends, and I did.”
She credits Jordan Peterson for helping her see the folly of social justice thinking. A friend sent her a video clip of the Canadian professor, figuring she would deem it “transphobic.”
Instead, she agreed with Peterson’s point of view.
“I came away thinking, ‘this guy’s not a transphobe. He’s making a really good argument about compelled speech,” she says. Peterson’s Biblically-tinged lectures also impacted her, including his <a href="https://www.idwnews.org/people/jordan-peterson/02-tragedy-vs-evil/">“Tragedy vs. Evil” speech.</a>
“It helped get me out of that resentful place in my life,” she says, coaxing her to address her problems rather than marinating in them. Social justice, she realized, is built around resentment, entitlement and “blaming other people about their status in life.”
“It’s poisonous to those who hold these beliefs for a long period of time. It severs their opportunities and makes them their own worst enemy,” she says. “It encourages you to view any mental health problems you have as your identity … the more of these oppressed identities you can check off, the more of a voice you get to have in this belief system.”
Any type of self-improvement can be seen as traitorous, she notes, like the blowback plus-sized singer Lizzo received after posting on social media about her desire to live a healthier lifestyle.
“She was <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/lizzo-upsets-fans-with-controversial-video-promoting-shake-diets/news-story/3ba12ed68e6ccc793fb985f80bcf4a3c">trashed for days by her own fans</a> who believed she was fat shaming and being part of the oppressive diet culture,” she says.
Smith understands what happens when a true social justice acolyte shares an independent point of view. It doesn’t end well. 
“Nobody has friends in social justice. They just have allies,” she notes.
Just ask J.K. Rowling, the progressive author <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/threats-to-cancel-j-k-rowling-grow-amid-transgender-controversy">who contradicted elements of the trans movement</a> last year and endured months, and months, of cancellation attempts.
Smith saw the cultural winds shifting earlier than many, one reason she started her “Unsafe Space” podcast in October 2018. The show serves as a cultural relief valve for both her and her listeners. She’s also keen on deprogramming those in the social justice religion, a task far easier said than done.
“I have to maintain empathy for people who believe all the things I used to believe,” she says. “Those people who believe in it sincerely can be reached, but not if you treat them in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated.”
Not every exchange ends like Smith would like, though.
She recalls a network executive admonishing her on social media with all the standard names – white supremacist, Nazi, etc. He had just attended a woke orientation session at a major media company and evidently left with an increased sense of moral righteousness.
She told him she left her woke groupthink because it tells people to treat each other differently based on their race and sexuality.
The executive swiftly agreed, to Smith’s horror.
Social justice philosophy takes well-intentioned people and “turns them into mouthpieces for racism and sexism. How clever is that?” she asks.
Smith remains hopeful that the younger generation, Gen Z, will start rejecting social justice dictums. She thinks it’s happening already.
“Young people especially crave authenticity &#8230; they crave what they’re told they can’t have,” she says. “They’re rejecting this woke belief system. That makes sense. Kids rebel, especially against an orthodoxy.”
She’s also heartened by The Daily Wire hiring Gina Carano, fired for allegedly hurtful social media messages, to make an independent action film for the site’s new movie platform.
“Instead of looking at Disney firing her in a negative light, I’m looking at it in a positive light,” she says. “What they tried to do is make an example of her. They’re gonna make a different kind of example for her.
“I hope more companies like The Daily Wire will move into that space. People are hungry for it. They want to see something authentic.”
So much of the Cancel Culture wave plays on our collective fears, something Smith says she learned to process in recent years.
“There’s nothing that I have that I fear losing. I consciously created this life the past few years so that would be the case,” says Smith, who works gig jobs between recording “Unsafe Space” episodes. “Go ahead, [cancel me]. I don’t care. I’ll get another gig job.”
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

29TH OCT 93:  A GENERAL VIEW OF THE FAMOUS HOLLYWOOD SIGN IN LOS ANGELES. L.A. IS ONE OF THE SITES F

Woke Comedy Manager Leaves Entertainment Industry To Start ‘Unsafe Space’ Podcast After ‘Seeing The Light’

Cancel Culture

Comedy

Entertainment

Keri Smith isn’t proud of her role in bringing social justice comedy to the masses. Smith helped secured a slot on FX for 2012’s “Totally Biased with W.

Woke Comedy Manager Leaves Entertainment Industry To Start &#039;Unsafe Space&#039; Podcast After &#039;Seeing The Light&#039;

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/woke-comedy-manager-leaves-entertainment-industry-to-start-unsafe-space-podcast-after-seeing-the-light/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-282085.jpg

On Tuesday, Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney proposed a bill — currently titled the “Higher Wages for American Workers Act” — which aims to raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour by 2025, with this increase requiring businesses to E-Verify employees to validate their eligibility to legally work in the country.
In other words, to increase the minimum wage and stop illegal immigrants from receiving this wage increase.
According to <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/romney-cotton-unveil-plan-to-boost-minimum-wage-to-10-per-hour">Fox Business</a>, “Under the Romney-Cotton plan, the federal minimum wage would climb to $10 per hour by 2025 and would then be indexed to inflation every two years. There would be a slower phase-in period for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. The proposal would also require employers to use ‘E-verify’ to ensure that businesses are hiring documented workers and would increase the penalties for anyone who hires an undocumented individual.”
What does the “Higher Wages for American Workers Act” proposal say?
The current proposal is a <a href="https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/higher%20wages%20for%20american%20workers%20act_one%20pager.pdf">one page document</a>. It begins with the following paragraph:
<blockquote>“The Higher Wages for American Workers Act would support a strong labor market for American workers by gradually raising the federal minimum wage to $10 and mandating E-Verify to ensure rising wages go to legally authorized workers. Rather than destroy 1.4 million jobs like a $15 minimum wage, this proposal would raise wages for 3.5 million workers without harming the very workers it’s intended to protect. Mandatory E-Verify would preserve American jobs for legal workers and remove incentives for increased illegal immigration. Both policies work in tandem to create tighter labor markets and put upward pressure on wages.”</blockquote>
Next, a “highlights” section outlines its high-level objectives:
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Drives wages up through tighter labor markets.</li>
<li>Protects the job market for American workers by ending illegal, black-market labor.</li>
<li>Prevents massive job losses, unlike the $15 minimum wage proposal.</li>
<li>Helps teenagers find their first jobs.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Then, a section titled “Mandatory E-Verify” explains how the act would enforce eligibility validation.
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Mandates E-Verify for all employers, phasing in implementation over 18 months to allow small businesses additional time to comply.</li>
<li>Raises civil and criminal penalties on employers that hire unauthorized aliens and/or violate I-9 paperwork requirements.</li>
<li>Prevents fraud by requiring workers 18 and older to provide a photo ID to their employer for verification, which will be cross-referenced if a photo is available through the E-Verify system.</li>
<li>Clearly authorizes states to share driver’s license information/photos to improve E-Verify’s accuracy and conditions certain federal grant funds on information sharing. </li>
<li>Provides $100 million annually in automatic funding to ensure E-Verify is immune from a government shutdown, and authorizes Congress to appropriate additional funds as needed.</li>
<li>Grants DHS authority to create a program to block or suspend misused Social Security numbers for E-Verify, including Social Security numbers of deceased individuals and unusual multiple uses of the same number.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Finally, the summary explains the plan regarding the “Minimum Wage Increase.”
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Gradually raises the federal minimum wage to $10 by 2025, and then indexes it to inflation every two years.</li>
<li>Creates a slower phase-in for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees.</li>
<li>Prevents any increase during the Covid-19 emergency.</li>
<li>Increases the youth minimum wage and extends the eligible period to 180 days.</li>
<li>Protects sheltered-workshops by keeping the 14(c) exemption. </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Then, a table of “scheduled minimum wage increases” under the proposal is provided, categorized by “federal minimum wage,” “small businesses,” and “youth minimum.”
Analysis — Overview
<blockquote>“The Higher Wages for American Workers Act would support a strong labor market for American workers by gradually raising the federal minimum wage to $10 and mandating E-Verify to ensure rising wages go to legally authorized workers.”</blockquote>
This opening statement assumes that a strong labor market is provided or encouraged by simply mandating that businesses pay their employees a certain amount, and that requiring registered businesses to verify the eligibility of workers will further strengthen the labor market. This assumption is far from supported by this document.
<blockquote>“Rather than destroy 1.4 million jobs like a $15 minimum wage, this proposal would raise wages for 3.5 million workers without harming the very workers it’s intended to protect.”</blockquote>
This statement is, in many ways, self-contradictory. The first part acknowledges that enforcing a higher minimum wage will destroy some number of jobs. The second part claims that enforcing a slightly lower wage increase would raise wages, while ignoring that any forced wage increase will likely result in some unemployment.
The fundamental reality of mandatory minimum wages is that many small businesses survive along very tight economic margins. Even a modest increase in wages can skew their margins from positive to negative, meaning that jobs are inevitably affected. The claim that this legislation would increase wages “without harming the very workers it’s intended to protect” is unsubstantiated given that it doesn’t even acknowledge the impact any wage increase has on businesses.
<blockquote>“Mandatory E-Verify would preserve American jobs for legal workers and remove incentives for increased illegal immigration. Both policies work in tandem to create tighter labor markets and put upward pressure on wages.”</blockquote>
This is simply untrue. There is a quantum logical leap between “mandatory E-verify” and “preserving American jobs for legal workers,” with the void missing evidence that the “American jobs” — which is a meaningless platitude — are designed and provided only for legal workers. Increasing wages will drive up the cost of legal services, which would only fuel the desire in the marketplace for cheaper — and therefore, often illegal — labor. While “legal” companies may comply and verify the eligibility of their workers, they will bear the burden of increased wage costs. Their customers will then bear the burden of increased service costs. This will only widen the “cost gap” between legal and illegal services, providing further incentive for illegal labor and, therefore, further incentive for illegal immigration.
Analysis — Highlights
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Drives wages up through tighter labor markets.</li>
<li>Protects the job market for American workers by ending illegal, black-market labor.</li>
<li>Prevents massive job losses, unlike the $15 minimum wage proposal.</li>
<li>Helps teenagers find their first jobs.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
These “highlights” are based on unsupported premises. Forcing businesses to increase wages does not necessarily “drive wages up” if those jobs no longer exist or are “replaced” by illegal and cheaper alternatives. Markets which are inorganically controlled by the federal government may be “tighter” in terms of legislation, but this doesn’t necessarily amount to market “strength” or “success.”
Given the federal government’s consistent inability to monitor or control illegal immigration, there is no evidence to suggest that requiring businesses to E-verify — thereby further shifting responsibility from the government to businesses, as we will discuss later — would prevent an illegal labor black-market. In fact, by forcing legal businesses to increase wages, there may be further need for cheaper labor, which inevitably results in enabling those willing to risk prosecution in return for business opportunities.
The claim that this legislation would “prevent massive job losses” is entirely subjective. Yes, on a basic level, increasing the minimum wage to $10 instead of $15 will likely result in fewer job losses, because $10 is less than $15. However, two policies can be bad at once, and just because one policy is preferable to another does not mean that the lesser of the two policies is itself optimal.
Analysis — No link between mandatory E-Verify and minimum wage increase
The claim that “both policies work in tandem to create tighter labor markets and put upward pressure on wages” is somewhat invalid given that these policies are mutually exclusive. Ultimately, this is an attempt to achieve a fundamentally non-conservative policy goal — to increase the minimum wage on a federal level, thereby accepting the Left’s premise — while avoiding all responsibility for controlling illegal immigration by placing the burden on small businesses.
Employers are already required to verify that their employees are eligible to work. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, employers <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/10-why-employers-must-verify-employment-authorization-and-identity-of-new-employees">must</a> “verify employment authorization and identity of new employees.” The addition of E-Verify simply enforces the use of an online verification system.
Generally, validation of work eligibility is already the law, so it’s unclear what such a policy has to do with an increase in minimum wage. Indeed, most items in the “Mandatory E-Verify” section outline understandable and agreeable improvements to the employee verification process. What is missing is the link between such security improvements and minimum wage increases to achieve the supposed goal of working “in tandem to create tighter labor markets and put upward pressure on wages.”
Conclusion
There are several key problems with this proposal.
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The policy link between higher wages and immigration validation is unsupported.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The assumption that increasing the minimum wage has optimal economic results is unsupported by both economists and past evidence.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreeing to increase the minimum wage “in return” for supposed improvements in illegal immigration controls is foolish. Firstly, it accepts the Left’s premise that an increase in minimum wage is economically optimal. Secondly, it shifts the burden of responsibility for immigration control from the government (who are failing) to small businesses.</li>
</ol>
Ultimately, this proposal is fundamentally non-conservative in nature. The control of illegal immigration must be a central pillar in the Republican manifesto moving forward, but potentially meaningless legislative decoration should not be celebrated in return for the economic disaster which could be triggered by opening the door to ongoing minimum wage increases.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Mitt Romney

The Romney/Cotton Minimum Wage Plan Is Anti-Conservative And Embraces The Logic Of The Left

Illegal Immigration

Minimum Wage

Tom Cotton

On Tuesday, Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney proposed a bill — currently titled the “Higher Wages for American Workers Act” — which aims to

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/the-romney-cotton-minimum-wage-plan-is-anti-conservative-and-embraces-the-logic-of-the-left/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1207533662-1200x800.jpg

Leaked photos from a recent diversity training — which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/backlash-hits-coca-cola-after-accusations-of-anti-white-agenda">encouraged</a> participants to “be less white” and asserted that “white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white” — recently went viral on social media, with reports that employees are being required to take the training by an American corporation.
This unapologetic endorsement of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory">critical race theory</a> — the ideology which posits that American society is inherently structured for the success of white people — is by no means a new phenomenon among leading companies. Within weeks of George Floyd’s death in the spring of 2020, the nation’s largest firms <a href="https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-corporate-america-has-pledged-1-678-billion-so-far/">pledged</a> over $1.6 billion to Black Lives Matter — a group which <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/">affirms</a> that black people are “systematically targeted for demise” by the state.
Beyond donations to high-profile activist groups, corporations launched additional policies and initiatives meant to show a commitment to social justice issues. However, many of these programs either have next to no impact on the businesses’ bottom lines or exist as thinly-veiled moves to maximize profits. Some companies even announced their programs in spite of their links to persisting human rights abuses abroad, particularly in Xinjiang, China.
Here are five firms intent on virtue signaling their corporate “wokeness.”
Apple
In June 2020, Apple <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/apple-racial-equity-and-justice-initiative-100m.html">announced</a> that it would spend $100 million on racial equity initiatives related to education, economic inequality, and criminal justice.
“Growing up in Alabama during the civil rights movement, I saw firsthand that the only thing that ever made lasting and durable change was people of goodwill putting aside comfort and safety to speak up to march to call for accountability and to do what they could to make a flawed society more perfect,” said CEO Tim Cook. 
“The unfinished work of racial justice and equality call us all to account,” added the executive on <a href="https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1271113929754685441">Twitter</a>. “Things must change, and Apple’s committed to being a force for that change.”
Overseas, however, the technology firm has other priorities.
Three months before Cook’s statement, the <a href="https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale">Australian Strategic Policy Institute</a> revealed that several Apple suppliers use Uyghur labor sourced from internment camps in the Xinjiang region of China. At least three factories in Apple’s supply chain use Uyghur labor — including Foxconn Technology’s Zhengzhou facility, where records reflect that Uyghurs work over 100 hours of “overtime” per month.
Google
Google devoted $175 million toward racial issues following the death of George Floyd.
“Creating meaningful change starts within our own company,” <a href="https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/commitments-racial-equity">wrote</a> CEO Sundar Pichai in a blog post. “Strengthening our commitment to racial equity and inclusion will help Google build more helpful products for our users and the world.”
Among other initiatives, Google earmarked $100 million worth of investments in black-led venture capital firms and startups, $15 million in job training programs, and $10 million to “increase equity, representation and inclusion,” across Android, Chrome, Google Play, and other offerings.
The firm also handed $1 million checks to the Movement for Black Lives, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and other activist organizations.
Despite its efforts in the United States, Google was also invoked in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute report as a beneficiary of Chinese slave labor.
Microsoft
Joining Apple and Google in supporting massive racial equity programs is fellow technology giant, Microsoft.
“Over the past several weeks, the senior leadership team, board of directors, and I have spent time reflecting, listening, learning, and discussing what role the company — and all of us collectively — must play in helping to drive change, both within Microsoft and in our communities,” <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/06/23/addressing-racial-injustice/">explained</a> CEO Satya Nadella in June 2020. “Today, we are making commitments to address racial injustice and inequity for the Black and African American community in the United States.”
Like other companies, Microsoft directed $150 million toward “diversity and inclusion,” which involved doubling the number of African-American managers within the next five years.
Nevertheless, like other companies, Microsoft reportedly benefits from forced labor in Xinjiang.
Amazon
Shipping and cloud computing giant Amazon — which <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/tech/amazon-minimum-wage/index.html#:~:text=Amazon%20is%20raising%20its%20minimum%20wage%20to%20$15,than%20250,000%20Amazon%20employees,%20plus%20100,000%20seasonal%20workers.">announced</a> a $15 per hour base pay for all employees in the United States three years ago — is currently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amazon-wants-15-federal-minimum-wage">pushing</a> the federal government to increase the minimum wage.
“We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said in 2018. “We’re excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us.”
“We’ll leave it to Congress and professionals to decide what the right number is,” remarked Dave Clark, the current head of Amazon’s retail business. “But for us, that number is $15.”
Though executives marketed the pay raise as a move toward greater workforce equity, paying such a wage is nearly impossible for most American small businesses.
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/10/one-third-of-small-businesses-say-15-minimum-wage-means-layoffs.html">CNBC</a> and SurveyMonkey’s most recent Small Business Survey shows that one-third of small businesses will have to lay off workers if the federal minimum wage rises to $15 per hour. Over half of small business owners oppose raising the wage. 
In contrast, Amazon — which <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/263264/top-companies-in-the-world-by-market-capitalization/">boasts</a> a market capitalization of $1.2 trillion and is currently the third largest company in the United States — can afford to pay employees above prevailing market rates.
More broadly, economists agree that the federal minimum wage is not an effective policy tool. A 2019 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amazon-wants-15-federal-minimum-wage">survey</a> revealed that 74% of economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Only 6% agreed that a $15 pay floor would effectively target poverty, and 43% want to see the policy eliminated entirely.
Likewise, a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/08/raising-minimum-wage-to-15-would-cost-1point4-million-jobs-cbo-says.html">Congressional Budget Office</a> analysis shows that a $15 minimum wage would lead to a net loss of half a million jobs in the United States.
Walmart
Alongside Amazon, retail giant Walmart — which outcompetes small businesses across the United States — <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/study-proves-walmart-super-stores-kill-local-small-businesses-article-1.140129">boosted</a> its wages in an effort framed as “investment in the people” of its workforce.
“On March 13, we’ll be raising pay for our store associates in digital and stocking workgroups,” <a href="https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2021/02/18/walmart-u-s-ceo-john-furner-to-associates-a-memorable-year-and-an-investment-in-you">announced</a> President and CEO John Furner in February 2021. “425,000 store associates in these frontline roles will receive a raise, with starting rates moving to $13 &#8211; $19 per hour, based on the store’s location and market.”
Walmart also joined with Big Tech companies in its nods toward racial equity.
Following the death of George Floyd, Furner’s predecessor Doug McMillon told employees that the firm would invest $100 million over five years to establish a center on racial equity. The center aims to “advance economic opportunity and healthier living, including issues surrounding the social determinants of health, strengthening workforce development and related educational systems, and support criminal justice reform with an emphasis on examining barriers to opportunity faced by those exiting the system.”
“There’s this moment here where the country is experiencing horrendous pain as a result of what happened with George Floyd’s murder and all of us seeing that on TV, but we all know that that was just one isolated event of many,” McMillon <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/walmart-ceo-doug-mcmillon-said-ceos-must-advance-racial-equality.html">said</a> on CNBC’s Squawk Box. “This isn’t about just one tragic event. It’s about what’s happened in our country for a long, long time and what’s happening today.”
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Tim Cook

5 Virtue Signaling Corporations Trying To Prove Their ‘Wokeness’

Virtue signaling

Woke Culture

Leaked photos from a recent diversity training — which encouraged participants to “be less white” and asserted that “white people are socialized to feel

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/5-virtue-signaling-corporations-trying-to-prove-their-wokeness/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1184094970-1200x800.jpg

I hope all my readers will join me in my exciting new quest to become less white. Previously, I had thought this would require an expensive membership at my local tanning salon. Now, thanks to a scandal surrounding the Coca-Cola Company (to which I refer at all times for guidance in ethics and personal formation) I have learned that being less white does not in fact require altering the pigmentation of my skin.
“To be less white,” according to the “Confronting Racism” online training course, “is to be less oppressive. To be less arrogant. To be less certain. To be less defensive.” Presumably it is also to be kinder, smarter, gentler, and better at baking pies.
I am moreover <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/backlash-hits-coca-cola-after-accusations-of-anti-white-agenda" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/backlash-hits-coca-cola-after-accusations-of-anti-white-agenda&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGW5bSBmm5GV5I8z8Zdj5e0BedrXQ">assured</a> via corporate statement that &#8220;Confronting Racism&#8221; is not part of Coca-Cola&#8217;s mandatory curriculum but merely an adjunct to their &#8220;learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace.&#8221; This plan includes — but does not mandate, thank goodness! — &#8220;access to LinkedIn Learning on a variety of topics, including on diversity, equity and inclusion.&#8221;
What a relief! For a moment I had thought that a major American corporation was inviting its employees to believe that their ethnic heritage — or, even more crudely, their phenotype — was a major determiner of their personal character and potential for such virtues as empathy. That would be racism, and racism is very wrong.
Now instead I learn — not because I have to but because I am enabled to — that “whiteness” is not a genetic category but merely a catch-all term for “everything bad.” In those terms, who wouldn&#8217;t want to be less white?!
It makes no difference whether Coca-Cola itself mandates this training or only lets its employees into the LinkedIn page where they can find it. In itself, the course represents a widespread philosophy as insipid as it is evil. This philosophy has found extremely popular spokespeople in Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, and Ibram X. Kendi, prophet of “anti-racism.” DiAngelo was featured in &#8220;Confronting Racism,&#8221; for which she undoubtedly received one of her <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-fragility-author-robin-diangelo-paid-more-for-university-speaking-gig-than-black-counterpart">staggering</a> speakers’ fees.
Kendi, in his book Stamped from the Beginning, has made his own fortune (to the tune of a $10 million <a href="https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/jack-dorsey-bu-center-for-antiracist-research-gift/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/jack-dorsey-bu-center-for-antiracist-research-gift/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFlUoVQZM03kk9iB3LdR0KjyKxamQ">donation</a> from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, for starters) by teaching that “racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large.” No other factor than the inherent racism of whiteness, in other words, can explain anything less than complete racial equity in all areas of American life.
But Kendi and DiAngelo are neither of them bright enough to have had so much as an original thought, let alone to have invented an entire system of racial grievance in America. Their rise to fame, and the monstrous ascendancy of the Critical Race Theory which they teach in American schools and businesses, has been and continues to be ably detailed and opposed by City Journal’s <a href="https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo?ref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Egoogle%257Ctwcamp%255Eserp%257Ctwgr%255Eauthor&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGQqQ9LcEMeJpiZvvEbVawIpW-0tA">Christopher Rufo</a>. For my own part, I don’t propose to deal further with Kendi or DiAngelo except as sock puppets — little gajillionaire mouthpieces for satanic forces which have been at work in American culture since the Cold War, and in the human heart since the fall of man.
Cultural Marxism
First, the Commies. As I imagine Michael Knowles will discuss in detail when his new <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speechless-Controlling-Words-Minds/dp/1684510821" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/Speechless-Controlling-Words-Minds/dp/1684510821&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFTkO9G2ivbybH3ZY1T0R17GjhUAg">book</a> comes out, Marxism failed as an economic proposition in America because, as an economic proposition, it sucks. We have — or had; it is dwindling — a middle class in this country. This made it difficult to foment discontent with America’s free market, because even our proletariat was having a pretty good time economically.
So, <a href="https://americanmind.org/features/the-racial-marxism-of-blm/the-plot-to-change-america/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://americanmind.org/features/the-racial-marxism-of-blm/the-plot-to-change-america/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEiDnJhhMWm9pnTUiSMmgN41VmAiw">inspired</a> by sophisticates like the Italian Antonio Gramsci and agitators like the American Rudi Dutschke, Marxists pivoted. They began what Dutschke famously called the “long march through the institutions” — an effort to insinuate Communism into America’s schools and artistic venues, to teach every “lisping babe,” in <a href="http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGa-_bEVm5U1PgFWMJEzyGuLBbHiA">Abraham Lincoln</a>’s memorable phrasing, that the world could be boiled down to class grievance.
This is by now a well-known story; the success of cultural Marxism was in evidence last summer when a generation of miseducated American radicals poured violently onto the streets of our cities to express hatred for all white, male, cis-hetero oppressors from the Founding Fathers on down to the present day.
What fewer conservatives realize is that not just the fury of summer 2020, but the whole BLM philosophy which motivated it — the terminology, the ideology, the millenarian narrative of struggle and apocalyptic triumph — is Marxist in origin and design. BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors was justified in describing herself and her colleagues as “trained <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH-ooDfstqE-1qVOSlwUjtieCNa0g">Marxists</a>”: the very notion of “white privilege” was itself cribbed from a 1960s Communist playbook.
It was Communist party members Noel Ignatiev and Ted Allen who came up with the idea of pitting Americans against one another with the accusation of “white-skin privilege.” If there is no economic grounds for discontent among the working poor, then certainly there is racial grounds: teach that the stain of racism persists in every white soul, and Americans will see one another not as friends and fellow citizens but as victims or villains.
Better yet, the same framework can be applied in every area of American society. “Once radicals adopt such an approach to radicalizing the white masses,” Allen <a href="https://americanmind.org/features/the-racial-marxism-of-blm/the-communist-roots-of-white-privilege/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://americanmind.org/features/the-racial-marxism-of-blm/the-communist-roots-of-white-privilege/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFdwkYb8TPcX4zCNsvoo9FqND9loQ">wrote</a>, “the implications for particular areas of activity will not be hard to find.” Many Communists are shockingly bad writers. But Allen was trying to say that animating grievance based on past injustices is an idea with legs. Women, gays, blacks, trans people — anyone with any claim to victimhood could be enlisted in the revolution against America.
The key, said Allen, was “the function of the white radicals.” A significant number of sympathetic whites, in other words, must accept and teach that they and their like are foundationally evil by virtue of their race. That is the function that useful idiots like DiAngelo and her corporate backers serve today.
Why It Worked
Somewhere under all of this intellectual history, though, there’s a deeper question. Why did this work? Why was any American — let alone masses of us — persuaded that he was inherently, inescapably broken from the moment of his birth? Race is an agonizingly sore subject with Americans in particular, of course — not because we are the worst society ever to exist in terms of racism, but because we are the first society to posit radical equality before the law as a matter of national creed.
Our philosophical commitment to not being racist was so extreme that our failure to make good on that commitment — morally appalling in itself but not remarkable in the scope of human history — became intolerable. We tore the country bloodily apart over it. The memory of that trauma is still fresh and the wounds it left are still tender after all these years.
All of that stipulated, though, there is something yet more primal going on here. Every country has damnable injustices in its past. Why is it that we can’t lay ours to rest? It seems we are psychologically unable to situate our own failures in the context of human failure more generally.
That is a religious problem. It is not ultimately economic, or political, or sociological, except in the very deepest sense of all those words. Questions about where a person or a nation stands in the cosmic sweep of history are ultimately theological questions. All the major faiths — whatever their other flaws, virtues, or differences — have some way of processing how much violence there is in the world, how pitiless and tragic are the paths man charts through the valley of death.
In the second Surah (chapter) of the Qur’an, when Allah announces his intention to create humankind, the angels are appalled. “You will make creatures who will do mischief and shed blood?” they gasp. Allah’s response to them is pure, inscrutable enigma: “I know what you do not.”
That is an example of a religion coming to healthy terms with our broken world: Why was the existence of man worth the atrocities he would commit? It is a mystery. There are things even the angels do not understand.
Christian theology agrees with this approach, up to a point. But Christians go further: when God sacrificed himself on the cross, we peered into the infinite depths of that awful mystery. “He himself bore our sins, in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live in righteousness.” The world is still a vale of anguish and grief. But Christians are consoled and guided by the thought that though the source of grief is us, the remedy for it is God and his mercy, which we are to emulate.
In his Second Inaugural Address, years into the torment of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln told a weary nation that these hard Christian truths would sustain and guide them in what was to come. The bloodletting of the war might be “the woe due to those by whom the offence” of chattel slavery came. But when that judgment had passed, the score was to be settled and all resentments buried. “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds.”
The Nation’s Wounds
Critical Race Theory and Cultural Marxism have won the victories they have won because they came to America at a time of spiritual desolation. Those rich and noble certainties which gave shape to Lincoln’s speech, the theological framework within which all men must grapple with the angst of being broken, have drained out of our cultural life in the wake of the World Wars.
In place of that broad Judeo-Christian consensus, woke racism presents a dark travesty of religion which pretends to scratch the itch for worship in every human heart, the way all satanic perversions do. The woke profess their faith in a new creed with another sacrifice at its core — not Christ’s freely chosen self-abasement, but the old and primitive ritual of the scapegoat.
As a matter of religious heritage, scapegoating practices are first codified in Leviticus 16, where the Jewish people are instructed to pile the sins of all the people onto one goat and send it running, never to return. But this symbolic practice is no mere artifice: it is a stopgap measure given by God to his people, a way of transferring the rage and pain of our fallenness onto a relatively safe object.
The Jews blamed one goat a year for the sins of the world so they wouldn’t do it to a person or race, which is what we are naturally inclined to do. It turns out inability to face up to the horrors of our brokenness is not unique to Americans: it is the norm, and it has motivated people throughout history to invent accusations against one another rather than face the fact of their own shortcomings. This is, in a cruel irony, exactly how Jews have been treated throughout history: from the blood libel to the Holocaust, God’s chosen people have been blamed for any number of sociological dysfunctions and made, wrongly, to suffer punishment for them.
In the empty void left by Christian worship, we have reverted to this most juvenile and ugliest way of dealing with our sins. “Identity politics begins from an understanding of the brokenness of white, heterosexual men,” writes Joshua Mitchell in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/American-Awakening-Identity-Politics-Afflictions/dp/1641771305" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/American-Awakening-Identity-Politics-Afflictions/dp/1641771305&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1614209705302000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE8cxRIC1X7SrVZwoFEk-nCzURmyg">American Awakening</a>. “Then, without the assistance of God, [identity politics] seeks to save the planet from the transgressors who have endangered it.”
It is not my intention here to scold anyone into a faith he cannot accept. But I do believe we cannot be realists about saving America without identifying the nature of our problem. Identity politics is a religion; Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi are clerics; they triumph not because they are strong but because we are spiritually weak.
If there is to be a solution to this it is religious revival, and it starts at home. Perhaps you are a Christian, perhaps you are not — your task is the same. Cast out false gods wherever you find them, and do not be satisfied with cheap solutions to profound questions. If you cannot believe in Christian dogma, ask yourself what you can believe in, and why.
Somewhere, among your fellows and in your own heart, there is a better answer to the sins of the world than the hideous, churning, atavistic nightmare that has cast its shadow over us again in the form of identity politics. Seek that answer, and enlist others in the search. If we are to survive, the solution has to start somewhere. Let it start there.
Spencer Klavan is host of the <a href="http://youngheretics.com/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://youngheretics.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608237713152000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFegURPjAdNFJd0-_mKudXAgmAp5g">Young Heretics</a> podcast and associate editor of the <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608237713152000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEwm82CEKe6gHOjTWwdZQOTR6iQow">Claremont Review of</a> Books and <a href="https://americanmind.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://americanmind.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608237713152000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHQm8tQMK1XoUSXLWkCl3KkGZJgrQ">The American Mind</a>. He can be reached on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/spencerklavan" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/spencerklavan&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608237713152000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHzq-src8474zs7-nMknyLYtgJwCA">@SpencerKlavan</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

SPAIN-POLITICS-RACISM-POLICE-PROTEST

The Dark Religion of Identity Politics

Critical Race Theory

identity politics

white privilege

I hope all my readers will join me in my exciting new quest to become less white. Previously, I had thought this would require an expensive membership at

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/the-dark-religion-of-identity-politics/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1219941587.jpg

One of the central areas of focus for those who engage in “cancel culture” is the notion of “cultural appropriation.”
This refers to the adoption of parts of one culture by members of another culture, and is viewed as especially controversial by many when members of a “dominant” culture appropriate from “disadvantaged” or “minority” cultures.
This has devolved into condemnation and outrage every time so-called “white culture” references or engages with any element — real or otherwise — of another “non-white” culture.
Last week, model and reality TV star Kendall Jenner was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-mob-attacks-kendall-jenner-for-cultural-appropriation-of-tequila">accused</a> of cultural appropriation after she launched a tequila brand, with her announcement criticized as “gentrification” of Mexican culture, with Jenner guilty of “taking from local Mexican artisans and profiting off our traditions and agricultural business,” despite only visiting “Cabos and Puerto Vallarta for vacation spots.”
More recently, the Cherokee Nation said it had “requested that Jeep ‘retire’ the name of its best-selling sport utility vehicle and called for a discussion with the automaker on ‘cultural appropriateness.’” Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cherokee-nation-asks-jeep-to-drop-name-of-top-selling-vehicle-saying-it-does-not-honor-us">wrote</a> in a statement, “I think we’re in a day and age in this country where it’s time for both corporations and team sports to retire the use of Native American names, images and mascots from their products, team jerseys and sports in general.”
When it comes to cultural appropriation, the counter-argument usually focuses on the idea that the usage of names or products deemed to be solely owned by one culture is not, in fact, cultural appropriation. For example, tequila isn’t uniquely Mexican, with some arguing that it was the Spanish conquistadors who first distilled agave.
However, in some ways this argument accepts the premise of the radical Left, in that cultural appropriation is bad, but that these aren’t valid examples of such appropriation. Instead, we should understand and advocate for the truth: that cultural “appropriation” is both natural and good.
This is the case for three reasons. Firstly, the entire concept of cultural appropriation relies upon the false view that cultures are distinct and separated, with every element of each siloed culture unique to its one society or civilization. In reality, the lines between human cultures are irredeemably blurred, with multiple cultures sharing multiple traditions, items, and ideas. Some cultures grew out of others, and some — as is human nature — engulfed others. With the constant movement and interaction of humans on a global scale, there is simply no such thing as a single “pure” culture from which to appropriate. More accurately, cultural appropriation is how cultures develop in the first place.
Secondly, it’s false to argue that one single culture “owns” anything which can then be appropriated. Unlike land or physical objects, it’s impossible to take — with or without permission — words, traditions, or concepts. Tequila, for example, is not owned by any one person or culture, and so there is no-one from whom it can be appropriated. Similarly, outside of copyright law, no culture can claim single ownership of a word or collection of words. 
Finally, the “appropriation” of positive elements of another culture should be viewed as a sincere form of developmental flattery on a global scale. As a species, we have developed as the single greatest power on the planet because we built upon the culture of others. Was it appropriation when the first early human discovered tools and his neighbors soon followed? Was it appropriation when the Romans developed indoor plumbing and areas never conquered by their empire adopted this revolutionary sanitation concept? Is it appropriation when one part of the world becomes famous for creating a certain form of beverage and someone else decides to enter the market?
These three reasons show both that cultural appropriation in the form condemned by the radical Left doesn’t exist, and that the interaction between cultures is uniquely responsible for everything we enjoy as a species today.
Most reject supposed cultural appropriation out of guilt or historical ignorance, viewing it as a power struggle or an example of cultural disrespect. While we should unanimously condemn disrespect in the form of bigotry — for example, overtly mocking cultures and their traditions — we should also accept that the adoption of cross-cultural elements is not only a reality of humanity, but an entirely positive one.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Kendall Jenner

‘Cultural Appropriation’ Is Good

Cultural Appropriation

One of the central areas of focus for those who engage in “cancel culture” is the notion of “cultural appropriation.” This refers to the adoption of parts

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/cultural-appropriation-is-good/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1132036617-1200x800.jpg

Goodbye, pastel polo shirts. Au revoir, cucumber sandwiches. Penny loafers, I think I’ll miss you most of all. But corporate experts in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” such as “anti-racism” consultant Robin DiAngelo want us to “be a little less white,” as screenshots from a “diversity&#8221; training session associated with the Coca-Cola Company revealed over the weekend. Coca-Cola has since denied that the slides are “part of the company’s curriculum,” but the soda giant also admitted training employees to access the education platform that hosts the lesson.
Whether Coca-Cola intended to promote that specific slideshow or not, DiAngelo’s brand of “anti-racism” has taken over training programs on campus and in corporate offices across the country. Whiteness has never played much of a role in my sense of identity. Many other categories — e.g., Catholic, American, conservative, etc. — spring to mind before “white” enters the picture. But who am I to question one of the nation’s leading race hustlers?
Like me, DiAngelo hails from an Italian family, which makes her professional peddling of white guilt all the more strange, as Italians were long <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Offer_We_Can_t_Refuse/2482tWkpfpQC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=italians+%22racial+middle+ground%22&amp;pg=PA261&amp;printsec=frontcover">considered</a> to occupy a “racial middle ground” between whites and blacks, at least in the Jim Crow South. The law classified Italians as white, but society often disagreed. The largest mass lynching in American history targeted and killed 11 Italian-Americans in New Orleans. Yet even we swarthiest of southern European stock must now endeavor to become “less white.”
DiAngelo’s curriculum explains how white people can try to rid ourselves of our race. “Be less oppressive,” the slides enjoin readers, “be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive, be less ignorant, be more humble, listen, believe, break with apathy, break with white solidarity.” How exactly one can simultaneously “be less certain” and “believe,” the instructor never manages to explain. Neither does she convey how white people might eschew “white” culture without consequently “appropriating” the culture of others. But most challenging of all, it is physically impossible for white people to be less white unless they darken their skin, which the radical race-baiters have prohibited for <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/northam-blackface-photo/index.html">everyone</a> other than <a href="https://time.com/5680759/justin-trudeau-brownface-photo/">leftist politicians</a> and <a href="https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/8/20665327/a-video-of-jimmy-kimmel-dressed-in-blackface-as-utah-jazz-legend-karl-malone-has-resurfaced-here-s-w">celebrities</a>.
Contrary to popular propaganda, on a metaphysical level, white people are already just about the least “white” we can be. According to a 2019 Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/05/most-black-adults-say-race-is-central-to-their-identity-and-feel-connected-to-a-broader-black-community/">survey</a>, only 5% of white people consider race to be “extremely important&#8221; to their identity. Another 10% consider it “very important.” The majority of respondents from every other racial group deemed race central to their identity. Black respondents ranked highest in racial consciousness, with 52% declaring race “extremely” important to their identity and nearly three-quarters considering it at least “very” important.
Ironically, the political activists urging white people to “be less white” seek the very opposite. They want white people, who overwhelmingly ignore racial identity, to be more white — if only so they can feel guilty for it. Inverting an older use of “white” that connoted virtue (e.g., “that’s mighty white of you”), today’s “anti-racists” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jun/25/abolish-whiteness-academic-calls-for-cambridge-support">reveal</a> a formal similarity to their “racist” foes by making “white” into a synonym for wickedness, something society ought to diminish or better yet “abolish.”
The corporate diversity training goes on to insist, “In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white.” Audiences who sit through this racist slideshow or countless similar trainings might dispute that characterization. In reality, race hustlers and cultural revolutionaries have made a mint selling racial grievance and white guilt. Their efforts have undone decades of hard-won <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx">racial harmony</a>. Amid calls for “whiteness” to wane, racial identity waxes — ironic, unless that was the point all along.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-the-metoo-movement-can-teach-conservatives-about-liberty">More from Michael Knowles: What The #MeToo Movement Can Teach Conservatives About Liberty</a>
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon – Season 7

KNOWLES: White People Can’t Be Any “Less White”

Diversity

Goodbye, pastel polo shirts. Au revoir, cucumber sandwiches. Penny loafers, I think I’ll miss you most of all. But corporate experts in “diversity,

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/knowles-white-people-cant-be-any-less-white/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-1227673155-1.jpg

DW Venezuela 1200×1200

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider’s Account Of Venezuela’s Demise

Socialism

Venezuela

On July 31st, 2016, I boarded a flight that would take me from Caracas, Venezuela to Indianapolis, Indiana. Many Venezuelans who come to the United States

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider&#039;s Account Of Venezuela&#039;s Demise

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/living-through-a-socialist-collapse-an-insiders-account-of-venezuelas-demise/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/DW-Venezuela-1200x1200-4.png

Several of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks have left observers scratching their heads, but perhaps the most perplexing and least qualified of the department head nominees is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first obvious question is, “what are Becerra’s healthcare or medical qualifications?” 
The answer is, he has none. Unless one counts defending the Affordable Care Act.
Otherwise, Becerra’s only other experience managing a healthcare situation is allowing California to remain in near-total lockdown mode, destroying businesses and livelihoods, forcing millions of his state constituents into anxiety — and depression-inducing isolation, and allowing school children to be used as political pawns in a lost year of education.
Becerra’s dismal handling of California’s COVID-19 response does not bode well for the rest of the country if he is confirmed as the head of HHS.
California parents, students and — for the time being, at least — the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) desperately want the state’s schools re-opened and believe they can be operated safely during the lingering COVID-19 pandemic.
At this point, in fact, just about the only people who want the schools to remain closed are California’s teachers’ unions. 
Unfortunately, there are more than 50,000 reasons to think they’ll get their way when the smoke clears.
To be precise, teachers’ unions spent at least $51,600 between 2017 to 2019 to advance Attorney General Becerra’s political fortunes. 
Now, a leading official in one of the worst state COVID-19 responses and a politician who owes a lot to teachers’ unions may head HHS, which oversees the CDC.
On Friday, the agency issued a report stating that schools could, and should, be open to in-person learning immediately under reasonable guidelines.
Care to predict whether the CDC will align itself with scientific fact or Becerra’s benefactors if he’s in a position to allow unions to hold every student in the country hostage to their demands?
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton tweeted campaign finance data revealing Becerra accepted $14,600 in political contributions from the California Teachers Association/Association for Better Citizenship in 2017 and the California Federation of Teachers’ COPE gave $14,600 in 2018 and another $7,800 in 2019.
With more than 300,000 members, the California Teachers Association is the country’s largest teachers’ union and enjoys considerable power in state policymaking. It has successfully prevented children from returning to in-person education and relentlessly advocated for teachers to get vaccinated before returning to the classroom, among its other demands, including — of course — more taxpayer funding.
Teachers’ unions in Los Angeles, however, tried attaching even more strings to their agreement, including closing charter schools and defunding local police.
If confirmed, Cotton believes Beccera would “weaponize the CDC to keep our schools closed and our children falling further behind.”
California has long been the cronyism and union corruption capital of the nation. Now, Becerra is a Senate vote away from applying this model to the rest of the country.
When Biden promised to make his the most union-friendly administration in history, he didn’t come right out and say that meant turning over the levers of power to a greedy, unscrupulous special interest. 

But the unions knew what he meant. And it turns out they were right.
Aaron Withe is national director of the Freedom Foundation, a multi-state public policy organization specializing in the abuses of government employee unions.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) And Democratic House Leadership Hold News Conference On Trump’s Rhetoric

Biden’s Pick For Health And Human Services Has No Experience In Health Or Human Services

Several of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks have left observers scratching their heads, but perhaps the most perplexing and least qualified of the

Biden&#039;s Pick For Health And Human Services Has No Experience In Health Or Human Services

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/bidens-pick-for-health-and-human-services-has-no-experience-in-health-or-human-services/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-530551244.jpg

Clint Eastwood flexed his box office muscle, again, with his 2008 smash “Gran Torino.”
Eastwood directed and starred as Walt, a cranky veteran spending his golden years slinging racial slurs at his multi-ethnic neighbors, especially Hmong residents.
When a local gang threatens both Walt and said neighbors, though, the old timer pushes past his racist feelings to put his life on the line for them. 
Literally.
The film gave Eastwood another hit, generating $148 million at the U.S. box office along with mostly glowing reviews. The film’s Rotten Tomatoes score stands at a strong 81 percent “fresh,” while general audiences offered up a 90 percent approval rating.
The UK Independent marveled at how Eastwood, in his late 70s at the time, showcased an older character growing beyond his bigoted ways.
Now, an Asian actor who co-starred alongside Eastwood in the film, the kind of opportunity any actor would cherish, says “Gran Torino” helped contribute to anti-Asian sentiment. 
Bee Vang admits the film gave Hmongs a very rare, nay “historic,” cinematic close up. He still regrets the film, saying the slurs employed by Walt <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/covid-19-era-s-anti-asian-racism-isn-t-new-ncna1258184">made racism more acceptable stateside.</a>
&#8220;At the time, there was a lot of discussion about whether the movie&#8217;s slurs were insensitive and gratuitous or simply &#8216;harmless jokes,&#8217; &#8221; Vang writes. &#8220;I found it unnerving, the laughter that the slurs elicited in theaters with predominantly white audiences. And it was always white people who would say, &#8216;Can&#8217;t you take a joke?&#8217;
“…Gran Torino” may have elided the crisis in Asia that birthed our diaspora and many others across the Pacific. But more concerning was the way the film mainstreamed anti-Asian racism, even as it increased Asian American representation. The laughter weaponized against us has beaten us into silent submission.”
Vang puts the film in context with an uptick in anti-Asian sentiment in the U.S. following the rise of COVID-19.
People magazine says Eastwood&#8217;s representative hadn’t returned a request for comment as of this time. One can imagine Eastwood’s true feelings on the subject, so it’s best his media team is laying low for now.
What Vang is doing, of course, is nothing new.
Molly Ringwald became a superstar thanks to filmmaker John Hughes. Decades later, after his passing, Ringwald blasted those very films for being hopelessly unwoke.
Stars like <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/woke-stars-apologize-the-help/">Bryce Dallas Howard and Viola Davis denigrated their own film</a>, 2011’s “The Help,” last year because they deemed it unacceptable to tell that story from a white character’s perspective.
Octavia Spencer, a black actress who earned an Oscar for her role in the film, hasn’t been as vocal in her opposition.
Now, Vang turns the movie role of a lifetime (his first official acting gig, to be precise) into a cudgel to attack Eastwood, his film, and the movie’s racial healing. He’s trying to defang Eastwood the storyteller in the process. How would one convey Walt’s dramatic change of heart without showing his calloused comments early in the film? Should such characters never appear on screen?
What about hit men? Anti-heroes like Tony Soprano and Walter White? Serial killers? Where would Vang like to draw the line? After all, millions secretly or not so secretly rooted on both Soprano and White in their respective shows. Was that wrong?
The best stories offer complex characters who are neither good nor evil. They’re like us, struggling with flaws but open to the possibility of becoming a better human being.
That’s precisely what happened to Walt, who go to know his neighbors so well he fought to the death to protect them. That’s not virtue signaling. That’s having real skin in the game, and it made “Gran Torino” all the more powerful because of it.
Vang may have heard uncomfortable, or even full-throated laughter, from some audiences watching the film’s coarse moments. Comedy can be cruel, ugly and unexpected, and laughter often spills from those emotions as well as a sense of surprise. Seeing a screen icon like Eastwood spitting out slurs is certainly surprising, no doubt, something the film’s creative team deemed a necessary artistic choice to propel the narrative.
For decades audiences howled over people in pain, from someone stepping on a rake or unexpectedly plunging into a pool. They still do.
That doesn’t mean movie goers are cold, cruel or unworthy of our empathy.
In fact, laughter doesn’t mean the audience condones a specific thought or action. Chances are Eastwood himself might tell the younger actor just that, had he engaged the icon face-to-face rather than pen an essay for the media.
Certainly the bigger messages found in “Gran Torino” – growth, acceptance, healing and sacrifice – linger longer than a few ugly slurs in the film’s first act.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
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>.

Premiere Of Warner Brothers’ “Gran Torino” – After Party

‘Gran Torino’ Co-Star Tries To Retroactively Cancel Film, Calls It ‘Insensitive’

Hollywood

Clint Eastwood flexed his box office muscle, again, with his 2008 smash “Gran Torino.” Eastwood directed and starred as Walt, a cranky veteran spending

‘Gran Torino’ Co-Star Tries To Retroactively Cancel Film, Calls It &#039;Insensitive&#039;

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/gran-torino-co-star-tries-to-retroactively-cancel-film-calls-it-insensitive/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-83980067.jpg

A male student has settled with American University after he was found responsible for sexual assault for a few minutes of over-the-clothes sexual activity that he says was initiated by the female student who accused him more than two years after the incident.
The male student, using the pseudonym John Doe, is an immigrant from Kuwait, a conservative Muslim country. Prior to enrolling in American, John had never even held hands with a woman before, as Kuwait has “strict laws, customs, and traditions regarding physical intimacy before marriage,” the student said in his lawsuit against the school alleging sex discrimination.
On the night of April 22, 2016, however, that all changed for John. His friend, referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire as H.S., and H.S.’s female friend, referred to only as Jane Roe, went to John’s apartment to hang out. While there, Jane ate part of a marijuana-laced brownie she had received from H.S. Neither H.S. nor John ate the brownie, instead drinking alcohol. At the time, John didn’t know Jane very well, but when H.S. left the room to vomit in the bathroom, Jane kissed John, according to John’s lawsuit. Since John was inexperienced, Jane “took the lead,” putting her hands on his head and guiding him toward her breasts. John touched Jane’s breasts over her clothes without her objection, and she then guided his head to her lower body. He asked her, “is this what you want me to do?” and she responded “yes.” Again, John was inexperienced, so he merely fumbled around for a few seconds including at one point putting his mouth on her clothes – he never performed oral sex. Since it was John’s first time with any sexual activity, he kept asking her if what he was doing was alright, and, he says in his lawsuit, she consented.
Shortly after their brief encounter ended, Jane order an Uber to take her and H.S. back to their own dorm. Before leaving, she hugged John and thanked him for being so “caring” by asking her for permission, unlike “someone else” in her past. Jane also texted John when she returned home, saying H.S. vomited on the ride home but that he was “OK.” The next night, Jane texted John to ask if he was “okay with everything.” John responded saying he was, to which Jane replied: “Yeah I’m tired but okay.”
More than two-and-a-half years later, just months before John was set to graduate, Jane suddenly filed a formal complaint with American’s Title IX Office alleging John had sexually assaulted her in 2016. She claimed John was somehow responsible for her eating the pot brownie and that she was incapacitated and unable to give consent during their brief and limited sexual activity. She also claimed that it was John who initiated sexual contact, accusing him of penetrating her with his finger.
A month after Jane made her allegation, John learned she also made multiple allegations against H.S., though he did not at that time learn what those accusations entailed. He later learned from H.S. that Jane claimed he had somehow made her eat the brownie and that when she was incapacitated from that brownie, H.S. grabbed her hair, one of her breasts, and “violently” kissed her. Jane also made a second complaint against H.S., alleging he and another friend, C.S., physically assaulted her and exposed their genitals to her in February 2016. She also claimed in that report that H.S. grabbed her breast.
In each instance, H.S. was found not responsible for Jane’s allegations. John, however, was found responsible for touching Jane without her consent, claiming he misread Jane’s clear statement of “yes” after John asked, “is this what you want me to do?” and her actions of physically moving John’s head over her breasts and between her legs.
The interactions lasted mere seconds, and Jane herself told school investigators that John stopped what he was doing when she asked.
John was found not responsible for making Jane incapacitated or digitally penetrating her. He was still suspended for a year-and-a-half, meaning he could not graduate on time even though he was just months away from receiving his diploma.
John, as hundreds of other students have done, sued American University, alleging the school violated his rights by conducting an investigation that ignored witness statements and text messages contradicting and undermining Jane’s claims and her own inconsistent statements, as well as her alleged withholding of evidence that undermined her claims. John also alleges the school investigator “selectively” quoted a witness, “leaving out key language that undermined” Jane’s claims, and ignored the text-message exchange between John and Jane, claiming Jane was merely responding to John, even though she initiated the messages.
This investigator, who is named in the lawsuit, also allegedly gathered evidence against John while investigating Jane’s claims against H.S. without sharing the information with John.
And while John didn’t receive information or updates from the investigator, Jane did. She also had access to all the information that had been withheld from John. John also argued in his lawsuit that finding Jane not credible in her allegations against H.S. should have helped John’s case, yet she was found credible in his case despite her apparent false allegations against H.S.
“She’s either trustworthy or not. H.S. cannot be credible in his own case but not credible as the key witness — who contradicted Ms. Roe’s claims — in Mr. Doe’s case. And Mr. Doe cannot be credible as a key witness in H.S.’s case but not credible in his own,” John said in his lawsuit.
John also alleged that he was not allowed to challenge members of the Sanctioning Panel that determined his suspension, even though university policies said he was “entitled” to do so. John also wasn’t allowed to have an advisor present, even though university policies allowed it.
John appealed the finding but was denied without explanation, granting the excessive suspension despite the actual findings against him.
After more than a year in the legal system, John and the university filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 22, 2012, an indication that a summary had been reached in the case. John’s attorney, Matthew Kaiser, did not respond to a Daily Wire press inquiry prior to publication.
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>.

Couple on sofa

They Kissed And Touched For A Few Minutes. More Than Two Years Later, She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault.

Sexual Assault

Title IX

A male student has settled with American University after he was found responsible for sexual assault for a few minutes of over-the-clothes sexual

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/they-kissed-and-touched-for-a-few-minutes-more-than-two-years-later-she-accused-him-of-sexual-assault/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/GettyImages-455451541-1200x800.jpg

Menu

SHAPIRO: The Authoritarian Left Is On The March

Member Exclusives

These Four States Are Fighting Big Tech Censorship

‘A Perfect Rating From Planned Parenthood’: 5 Things To Know About Biden HHS Nominee’s Abortion…

The Political Activism And Influence of Bill Gates

Hillary Clinton Says She’s Writing Her ‘First Work Of Fiction.’ She Must Have Forgotten This…

Teachers, Please End This Hostage Situation.

Woke Comedy Manager Leaves Entertainment Industry To Start ‘Unsafe Space’ Podcast After ‘Seeing…

The Romney/Cotton Minimum Wage Plan Is Anti-Conservative And Embraces The Logic Of The Left

5 Virtue Signaling Corporations Trying To Prove Their ‘Wokeness’

The Dark Religion of Identity Politics

‘Cultural Appropriation’ Is Good

KNOWLES: White People Can’t Be Any “Less White”

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider’s Account Of Venezuela’s Demise

Biden’s Pick For Health And Human Services Has No Experience In Health Or Human Services

‘Gran Torino’ Co-Star Tries To Retroactively Cancel Film, Calls It ‘Insensitive’

They Kissed And Touched For A Few Minutes. More Than Two Years Later, She Accused Him Of Sexual…

Collections

Trending

Latest

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.