Have Kids! Sincerely, Texas

Our society is not friendly to big families, a fact we owe to many causes. Perhaps the leading cause is the triumph of “sexual liberation.” It encourages sexual promiscuity, and, through birth control and abortion, it seeks to eliminate any consequences. It is hostile to chastity and fidelity. It glamorizes career and the accumulation of wealth over parental sacrifice. Children are perceived as inconvenient, slobbery and whiny contributors to the destruction of our environment. If a woman chooses to stay at home with her children, she is thought to be moving backward and resisting the rights that American women of the past fought so hard to gain. Our economy also plays a large part in discouraging the expansion of families. Inflation is a factor, but the cost of an average house in the United States has nearly doubled in the last ten years, skyrocketing from $292,200 in 2012 to $543,600 in 2022. Between 2021 and 2022, it increased by $79,400. It is unsurprising that, according to the United States Census Bureau, the fertility rate of young women has declined by 43% between 1990 and 2019 for 20-24-year-olds.

In our democratic republic, legislation is often swayed by the majority opinion. The cultural atmosphere has a deep influence on law. The reverse is also true. Our laws, whose foundation stands to ensure Americans’ rights to life and liberty, can have powerful effects on public opinion. Legalization trends towards normalization. We can see an example of this in Catholic attitudes toward abortion over the decades. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, an increasing number of Catholics approve of legal abortion: 56% as of July 2022. In the 1950s, when legislators moved to loosen abortion laws, Pope Pius XII reiterated the Catholic position  that “neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.” At the time, few Catholics opposed him. Despite the unchanging and staunch position of the Church, most Catholics nowadays fall among the 62% of American adults who approve of abortion. That most Catholics now reject the Church’s doctrine on abortion suggests a definite cultural influence. One could conclude that the de facto legality of abortion brought about by Roe v. Wade encouraged this tremendous shift.

In the same way that laws can have discouraging effects on society, they can also have positive effects. An example of this is Texas’ Bill 88(R) HB 2889 by Rep. Bryan Slaton, which reduces property tax for families. However, Texans who are eligible for this reduction must meet a few sensible qualifications: the family receiving these benefits must consist of a married couple, specifically a mother and father, and they must have at least one “natural child” (that is, a biological child of both parents), an adopted child of both spouses, or an adopted child of one spouse. And, if the final circumstance happens to be true, that child must have been adopted after the couple’s wedding day, and he or she must be the natural or adopted child of the other spouse. In this case, the other spouse must have been a widow or widower before the couple was married. Also, neither the mother nor the father can ever have been divorced. The reduction starts at 10% for a married couple, man and woman, neither of whom has been divorced, and it increases to 40% for families with four children. If the family has ten or more children, all property tax is eradicated. Plus, the bill is perpetual – when the children grow up, or if one of the spouses dies, the tax cut remains. If passed, benefits would begin on January 1, 2024.

In an interview with East Texas News, Rep. Slaton commented, “the first goal is to promote a healthy family.” When asked why the bill has so many qualifications (e.g. that “natural born children” must be born of both spouses after marriage), he replied that the bill encourages an ideal. He himself does not qualify for the bill, and he understands that not everyone will. “We want people, when they think about what they’re gonna do in the future with their family, we want them to look at what is best: and it’s best for people to get married, stay married, and have children - lots of children.” Slaton said that he understands the need for the funding of government programs for single parents and broken homes, but he hopes to encourage an approach that avoids these scenarios entirely.

Our economy makes it almost impossible for families to thrive. At least Texas acknowledges the mortgages, insurance, education, and hundreds of other financial factors holding couples back from having kids, and makes an effort to soften the blow with a reduction of property tax. The family is the foundation of the United States. If our legislators do not support the foundation of our country, it is sure to crumble.

Hell-ywood: The Role of Entertainment in Social Erosion

On February 5, 2023, singer and songwriter Sam Smith decided to take the mask off the entertainment industry by dressing up as Satan and performing alongside dancers wielding BDSM gear as props with red lights and flames to match. The performance quickly drew ire from individuals who derided it as “Satanic” and reminiscent of the “End of Days.” Others took note of the song’s praise of Balenciaga, the now notorious fashion brand which drew fire for an ad campaign featuring children holding teddy bears dressed in sexualized clothing and bondage gear. While Smith may have breached a boundary by outing the entity which many in entertainment truly serve — while degrading already abysmal standards of entertainment in the process — the unfortunate truth is that the entertainment industry has been undermining social integrity in America almost since its inception.

Such was the subversive nature of modern entertainment that one of the first actions taken by concerned entertainment insiders and members of the public was to attempt the setting of internal and external guidelines for the industry. Driven by a number of high profile scandals, the Motion Picture Code was put into effect in 1930 in order to more effectively regulate the content of motion pictures. The code, drafted by Jesuit Fr. Daniel Lord and Catholic layman Martin Quigley, contained a general set of guidelines prohibiting depictions of explicit sexuality and social deviance, while encouraging the depiction of correct morals and respect for law and order. In addition to the enforcement of the code, the National Legion of Decency — a Catholic organization dedicated to identifying and protesting morally questionable pictures — encouraged moviegoers to avoid pictures which it deemed inappropriate. While neither the Motion Picture Code nor the Legion of Decency were entirely perfect in their assessment of motion picture morality, they provided a critical moral bulwark in the realm of popular entertainment.

With the disappearance of the National Legion of Decency and the elimination of the Motion Picture Code, film and television have been left to push the boundaries of moral decency with near-impunity. Restrictions of on-screen intimacy and immoral conduct have given way to nudity and sex scenes that are borderline pornographic in nature. Furthermore, criminal conduct is glamorized, and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer have become icons of recent true crime films and television series.

Meanwhile, the music industry has undergone an equal level of moral and compositional degradation. A 2008 study conducted by Heriot-Watt University found that popular music has become less melodically complex over time, which has translated into diminished creativity by listeners. Meanwhile, pop lyrics have become as ribald as they are stale, with Cardi B’s “WAP” and Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” graphically encouraging promiscuity and other base behaviors. Sixty years ago, Elvis Presley drew a storm of controversy for his allegedly provocative onstage hip swiveling and footwork. At present, Megan Thee Stallion performed in a skin-tight bodysuit and put on an extended twerking display on national television without so much as an eyebrow raised in the public sphere.

The degradation of social mores onscreen and on the air is proving to have very real consequences for American society. Perhaps the best known example of the impact of entertainment on American moral perceptions is the “Will and Grace Effect.” The eponymous show was one of the first to portray homosexuals in a prominent role, an intentional choice by its writers who were seeking to normalize homosexuality among the American public. The show was massively successful in this regard, with American support for gay marriage dramatically increasing during the show’s runtime, with then-Vice President Joe Biden stating that he was one of the show’s many pro-gay converts.

It may be tempting for individuals on the right to dismiss the corruption and social rot in the entertainment industry as par for the course, or merely a matter of parental control over screens. Yet, the ubiquity of both debased shows and music renders such a dismissal hollow. Unless the entertainment industry undergoes a true transformation, exposure to morally degrading content is an inevitability, and social and moral deviancy will continue to become normalized. Of course, a return to the Motion Picture Code is near impossible, as the entrenchment of cultural degradation has been so profound in Hollywood that a re-adoption of the code would almost certainly never come to fruition. The solution, therefore, must come from the consumer. Conservatives should endeavor to view more media propagated by like-minded actors, musicians, and companies, while simultaneously reducing their consumption of media from groups that oppose their moral interests. In lieu of an overarching Legion of Decency, Catholics and conservatives can work together on a smaller scale with individuals from their communities to coordinate their efforts toward changing entertainment. By taking these initial steps, conservatives can begin the process of reforming the entertainment industry.

The Dangers of TikTok

In April 2020, a few of my friends finally convinced me to download TikTok. It is characteristic of me to be woefully behind on social trends — an example being that I did not download Instagram until my junior year of high school. Since I was already so disconnected from my friends due to the COVID-induced lockdowns at the time, I relented and downloaded the app — and what a mistake that was! I instantly found myself being bombarded with videos of all kinds: recipes, dance trends, comedy shorts, and many other types of content. One addicting thing about TikTok is the strategically-catered variety of content it offers. The app’s algorithm learns what you like scarily quickly and subsequently recommends similar videos in order to keep you interested. I, along with many other Americans who downloaded the app during the Pandemic, became TikTok addicts. Eventually, however, the whirlwind that was TikTok became too much for me, and I deleted the app over a year ago. At first, it was difficult to not have the option to distract myself from the day’s activities by going on TikTok since I had grown so accustomed to it. However, at this point in my life, I have now become so alienated from the world of TikTok that I forget it exists unless someone mentions it to me. So that begs the question: “Why am I writing this article?”

In mid-December, 2022, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bipartisan bill that would ban TikTok from operating in the United States, citing serious concerns about TikTok’s ties to China. Even though TikTok itself operates within the U.S., its parent company, ByteDance, is required by Chinese law to make data from TikTok available to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Therefore, many American lawmakers are fearful that the private information of American citizens is being abused by the CCP due to TikTok’s ties to ByteDance. Additionally, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced and helped pass a ban on TikTok on government devices. This bill was unanimously passed in the Senate, but still needs to pass the House of Representatives. However, the fact that it was unanimously passed in the Senate is telling; why would lawmakers so vehemently want to ban TikTok on government devices but not provide the same type of security to regular citizens? 

To be clear, banning TikTok is not a new endeavor. Some may remember that, back in 2020, the Trump administration also sought to ban TikTok in the United States. President Trump actually signed an executive order that banned TikTok from the app store that mentioned the concerns about TikTok’s apparent lack of privacy and the CCP connection. The executive order was immediately challenged for a multitude of reasons, one being that people were willing to give ByteDance and the CCP the benefit of the doubt. This assertion ignores the fact that the data belonging to regular American citizens were not private at all. One may actually find explicit evidence of this in TikTok’s own terms of service, which reads in part, “We automatically collect certain information from you when you use the Platform, including internet or other network activity information such as your IP address, geolocation-related data, unique device identifiers, browsing and search history (including content you have viewed in the Platform), and Cookies.” Despite this concerning admission of questionable privacy ethics, the Biden administration reversed the ban on TikTok in June 2021, with President Biden saying that he would resolve the problem in a “different way.” However, he has not taken any action on the issue during the course of his presidency, which is why Congress is taking the problem into their own hands. 

On top of the concerns about privacy, TikTok is dangerous for mental health reasons. A study was published in mid-December 2022 that exposed how TikTok intentionally recommends content that supports self-harm and eating disorders to young viewers. In the study, researchers set up fake TikTok accounts where they posed as 13-year-old users interested in content about body image and mental health. Within 2.6 minutes after joining the app, TikTok’s algorithm recommended them suicidal content, and eating disorder content was recommended within just 8 minutes. Additionally, over the course of this study, researchers found 56 TikTok hashtags hosting eating disorder videos that collectively had over 13.2 billion views. The CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, said, “TikTok is able to recognize user vulnerability and seeks to exploit it. It’s part of what makes TikTok’s algorithms so insidious; the app is constantly testing the psychology of our children and adapting to keep them online.”

Ultimately, it is undeniable that TikTok encourages degeneracy and is bad for the mental health of our citizens, but that is not reason enough to ban an app. However, it is paramount for the Federal government to get involved in the issue due to the national security threat that the app poses to us as citizens and to the United States as a country. Therefore, if you do not have a New Year’s resolution yet, here is a challenge: if you have TikTok, delete it as soon as possible, and if you do not have it, never fall to its temptations.

A License to Kill

There has been a growing movement pushing for the legalization and societal acceptance of assisted suicide that does not restrict itself to national boundaries. This phenomenon of euthanasia based on consent degrades human dignity by making life’s value wholly subjective. There is no logical limit to assisted suicide when it is allowed, as has been seen in practice in several countries. There is only one answer to this sinister threat that is tearing apart our respect for human existence, to radically value and defend all human life unconditionally.

The most prominent example of this growing culture of death can be seen in Canada. In 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned legal precedent by declaring that there exists a human right to assisted suicide in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following this ruling, physician-assisted suicide was legalized for patients (or victims) with terminal diagnoses through the Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD). Soon after, this law was expanded to include all Canadians with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The next step in this logical progression has occurred but is temporarily delayed due to popular outcry. Originally intended for 2023 but coming into effect next year, it will make mentally ill people with no other medical conditions be assisted in committing suicide, essentially creating suicide on demand.

This torrent of laws legitimizing and allowing euthanasia in Canada has destroyed, harmed, and threatened the lives of many Canadians. Every day twenty-seven Canadians commit suicide with the approval and support of a physician. One example of the effect of these new laws is the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols was placed on suicide watch at his local hospital by concerned relatives, but while in the hospital he was assisted by physicians in his own suicide by citing “hearing loss” after refusing to wear his cochlear implant. Randy Obenauer, a seventy-four-year-old man, apparently would cry while cleaning his catheter. After his friends tried to obtain assistance for him, authorities asked if he was interested in the MAiD program instead. Several veterans seeking assistance from the Canadian Veteran Affairs program were offered MAiD as an alternative to psychological and medical help. Canadian society has become unfortunately very comfortable with suicide, but it does not end with Canada.

Many countries in Europe have legalized assisted suicide. Germany has gone the farthest, with a 2020 German Supreme Court case establishing that every autonomous individual had the right to suicide and governmental assistance in that suicide. Otherwise, in Germany’s view, the fundamental human right to choose would be deprived from its citizenry. In the United States, eleven states allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has been the pioneering state in this regard, recently making it legal even for out-of-state residents to obtain suicide services. The Massachusetts legislature currently has a bill legalizing assisted suicide that Governor Maura Healey seems inclined to sign if passed. As grim as this story is, many will question why the state should force someone to live, especially those who are terminally ill.

Many people support the legalization of euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, with recent polling at 72% in favor in the United States. But this justification for suicide is flawed and damaging to human dignity. The value of human life is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness is not somehow less deserving of rights than someone who is healthy. The objective delineation between the terminally ill and the healthy is in the end arbitrary, as the human condition is ultimately terminal. Rather, the reason many sympathize with the terminally ill is the pain, both emotionally and physically, caused by such a devastating medical condition.

Extreme pain, emotionally and physically, can make life seem undesirable and too much of a burden for those afflicted with it. It becomes a struggle to do even the most basic tasks, and the chronic suffering can wear people down. Even the strongest amongst us would struggle with conditions such as depression or cancer. But once again, pain does not diminish the value of human life. Just because one loses the will to live, does not mean that living is unimportant. To prove this, I must ask an uncomfortable question that too many reading this are unfortunately familiar with. If your friend, who was in great suffering, came to you and confessed they were suicidal or actively intended to commit suicide, what would you do? Most people would try to comfort and support their friend in every way they can and do their best to ensure their friend gets help. Almost nobody would attempt to assist their friend in this horrible act. Some may consider that friend unable to consent properly due to their mental anguish, but how is their anguish significantly different from that experienced by the terminally ill? A lack of hope and belief in life is what drives people to this dark path, and we should do everything we can to prevent them from falling down it.

Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all know deep inside that life is a gift to be preserved. We know this in the same way that we know the rays of a dawning sun are beautiful and the sounds of a bird singing are musical. It has become easy to forget this simple fact while living in the modern world. We can seem so small and insignificant when compared to the billions of humans that cover this planet. Our identity is often devalued to just our GPA and what we contribute to GDP. Our lives can seem to become just hours of unremitting work and endless scrolling through social media. But life continues, and we must continue to live it as long as we are allowed to. There is a battle to be fought for human life without exception in the halls of power, behind podiums, and on television. But first, it has to be fought within each of ourselves and our relationship with others. Our current crisis of euthanasia is only enabled by a society that has grown callous to the amazing mystery and beauty of human existence. We must remember and believe in this universal truth, that life is worth living.

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new; the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially racially-focused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirty-seven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation.  As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The Left Believes No Human is Illegal, Until They’re Standing On Their Doorsteps

It’s rare nowadays to walk through a high end housing development without seeing an “In this house we believe…” sign on at least one home’s front lawn. The problem is, when a person places such a sign out on their front lawn, they better believe what it says. Unfortunately, in regards to immigration policy, it doesn’t seem that such individuals have any interest in practicing the beliefs they espouse on their yard signs.

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2016 Presidential Election, Kristin Garvey, a Wisconsin librarian, was particularly distraught that Trump had won the election. In awe of the result, Garvey decided to list key values of hers and other Americans that she believed would be threatened by the Trump administration on a white poster board. Shortly after images of her sign made their way to the internet, an activist noticed the sign and recruited an artist to rework it into a colorful yard sign along with the help of Garvey. After the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, sales for the sign spiked.

All across rural Vermont, my home state, such signs stood in the front yards of most homes immediately following the BLM protests. Many of my white classmates with such signs standing on their front lawns decided to post a black square on their Instagram pages, believing that such action would significantly benefit the African American community rather than directly engaging with African American individuals.

The very individuals decrying white privilege were the same people who failed to immerse themselves in communities with high percentages of non-whites. Perhaps this is because my friends live in rural Vermont, the state with the second highest percentage of whites of all U.S. states, at 94.2%, according to the World Population Review. The wealthiest members of our society living in bubbles secluded from reality often feel that they are the most qualified to offer critiques of the general population. This is elitism at its finest. Unfortunately, such elitism has transferred to other social issues too, the most recent example being elitist Democrats’ reaction to Republican governors sending migrants to liberal parts of the country.

A key line from Kristin Garvey’s “In This House We Believe…” sign is “No Human is Illegal.” As of late, it doesn’t seem as if the people with such signs on their front lawns have been obeying this key tenet of their belief system. As Democratic politicians bringing home salaries well into the six-figures decry the actions of Republican politicians sending migrants to Leftist havens of Washington, DC, Martha’s Vineyard, and in one case Vice President Harris’ home, they evade the necessary facts of the Biden administration’s current shortcomings in dealing with the out of hand crisis at our southern border with Mexico. Since President Biden took office on January 20, 2021 up until August 17, 2022, just about one month ago, nearly 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, according to Cision PR Newswire. According to agency reports, the crossings of approximately 900,000 illegal immigrants went undetected by American Border Protection Agencies. Of course, Biden has failed to take responsibility for such an uptick in illegal immigration flowing into the United States, constantly blaming the Trump administration for handing him the reigns to an incapable border response.

In response to calls that he tighten his policy regarding the border between the United States and Mexico, President Biden responded, “I make no apologies for ending programs that did not exist before Trump became president that have an incredibly negative impact on the law, international law, as well as on human dignity.” In essence, Biden, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his failure in dealing with an influx of migrants, instead deemed Trump’s actions to contain the threat as negatively impacting the global order. In fact, Biden’s actions, not Trump’s, appear to be a major threat to the global order because they have caused instability within the United States, typically thought of as the epitome of strength to the world.

The inactions of the Biden administration threaten the prospect for political stability within Central America through failing to address the ways in which some Mexican government officials have coached citizens in how to immigrate illegally to the United States as well as the shortcomings of Central American countries such as Honduras and El Salvador in failing to address transnational crime as laid out by a United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Minority Report. Additionally, a recent Department of Homeland Security report revealed that Venezuela was sending caravans of violent criminals to the U.S.-Mexico border as recently as July, in the hopes of migrating to the United States. This report further discloses that there have been nearly 130,000 encounters with Venezuelan migrants from October of 2021 up until July of 2022. These issues are very much at the root of our border crisis, as Central American political corruption and pervasive crime leads to cartels being at ease to take advantage of their governments.

As journalist Adam Isaacson wrote after many trips to the border in both the U.S. and Mexico, “It would be hard to devise a migration system that benefits…‘cartels’ more than the current one does” as of April 2022 under the Biden administration. These cartels are responsible for human trafficking and other human rights violations and crimes, often unchecked by the incompetent Biden administration. For instance, in June of 2022, Reuters reported that at least 51 migrants died “after being trapped inside a sweltering tractor-trailer truck found abandoned in Texas…” Two Mexican nationals ended up being charged in U.S. federal court in connection to this devastating incident, each “charged with possessing firearms while residing in the United States illegally” according to court documents and U.S. authorities. According to Craig Larabee, a special agent tasked with running the investigative arm of ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, referred to this particular event as marking “the greatest amount of loss of life on record from a human trafficking attempt in the U.S.” according to a Reuters news report. All this, blood on the hands of the Biden administration. It gets to the point where constantly blaming all of your administration’s incompetency wears off and the American people demand accountability rather than constant scapegoating. 21 months into a presidency is more than enough time to start accepting any shortcomings as your own.

What’s more disturbing than elected officials not taking responsibility for their actions in the current border crisis with Mexico is that they don’t have to feel the brunt of their foreign policy incompetency. Instead, everyday Americans living on our southern border and the governors of those states are tasked with either learning how to live with the constant threat of danger or formulating policies and taking action to counteract the incompetence of the federal government in regards to the latter. Recently, we’ve in fact seen governors take matters into their own hands through deciding to send migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, Washington DC, and Vice President Harris’ home in one instance. The White House has deemed the actions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in sending migrants from his state to Martha’s Vineyard as “disrespectful to humanity.” These words come from an administration that according to a June NBC news story, under the Department of Homeland Security planned to “transport migrants awaiting immigration proceedings from U.S. cities along the southern border farther into the interior of the country beginning with Los Angeles.” President Biden, just months earlier, planned to do the same thing that he chides Republican governors for currently doing. What’s more frustrating is that the only brunt of failed immigration policy that Biden has to deal with is that of public opinion. Republican governors, on the other hand, directly feel the effects of the Biden administration’s failures through being forced to determine what to do with an influx of migrants and how to incorporate them into their thriving society with jobs filled, among other difficulties that until now, Democratic leaders, especially President Biden, hadn’t really been forced to handle.

A second contradiction of the Left is that it openly encourages mass migration, calling for Americans everywhere to recognize the dignity of all immigrants regardless of legal documentation status, while referring to such migrants in a derogatory fashion when these migrants are at their front doorstep, in some cases, literally. Max Lefield, who helped found the Casa Venezuela Dallas foundation, which seeks to help migrants adjust to living in America, recently responded to DeSantis’ actions regarding sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard on charter planes. In his tweet, which was recently deleted by NBC News, Lefield said, “Florida Gov. DeSantis sending asylum-seekers to Martha’s Vineyard is like me taking my trash out and just driving to different areas where I live and just throwing my trash there.” Lefield benefits from providing shelter and support to illegal immigrants, yet compares such migrants to “trash.” This is emblematic of other actions of the Left, which has actively encouraged illegal immigration up to the point where Republican governors take action to deal with the implications of such policy, placing migrants on the doorstep of Democratic elites. Then, all of the sudden, these previously wonderful immigrants have to be sent to a Cape Cod military base because these Democrats can’t possibly be forced to deal with the problems they’ve created.

Conclusively, the Left’s response is emblematic of their tendency to employ “rules for thee, but not for me” approach. Until Americans recognize the massive hypocrisy and shortcomings of the Left’s response to immigration, specifically illegal immigration, our national security is in peril.

Another Pawn for the MAGA King

President Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, was warning against the dangers of hyperpartisanship that ultimately plunged the country into civil war.

Fast forward to 2022, and it appears that the Republican Party has finished building the house. The occupants? The MAGA Republican and the Moderate Republican.  And believe me, these factions are  keeping their distance.

The January 6th attack on the Capitol solidified support for the former president as the red line dividing the MAGA republicans and the “R.I.N.O.S” (Republican in Name Only) who have spoken out against the former president.  As polls increasingly point to Democratic gains in the midterm elections, the Republican Party will no longer be able to toe this line. Membership in the party will soon be based on one question: do you support the former president?

Ronny Jackson had to answer that question. The former physician to both former President Trump and Obama, won his bid for Texas’ 13th Congressional District in 2020, boosted by an endorsement from Trump. Since entering office, Jackson has been one of the most fervent supporters of former President Trump. And it’s not shocking why Trump endorsed Jackson. Jackson fits the bill for a MAGA Republican: faith-based, family-oriented, tough on crime, etc.

However, it is Jackson’s virtue-signaling support of veterans that demonstrates the dichotomy of the MAGA Republican. There is no question that Congressman Ronny Jackson is outspoken in his support for our nation's veterans.

As he should be. The only problem? Jackson is an empty suit when it comes to supporting veterans. 

A simple click on the veterans’ issues page of his campaign website is evidence of this.

There were two paragraphs on that tab. Barely. The tab lacked any notion of a coherent, specific plan to help our nation’s heroes.

Instead, he uses his words to prop himself up.

“As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.” 

Translation: I have no plan.

Congressman Jackson’s thirty-year service in the Navy is heroic, and must be emphasized. However, Jackson is another MAGA Republican to trade away the virtues of public service for the virtues of popularity.

The 2022 Midterm Elections will test the durability of the MAGA Republican platform. Swing states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are the crux to gaining the majority in Congress. The Republican nominees in these respective states, J.D Vance (R-OH) and Mehmet Oz (R-PA), are caricatures of former President Trump, as they are willing to reiterate every conspiracy theory and lie that Trump has claimed throughout his presidency for the glory of a Senate seat.

Pennsylvania Republicans practically handed the Senate seat to John Fetterman and the Democrats by nominating “Dr. Oz.” Oz has run a terrible campaign and is completely out of touch with working class Pennsylvanians. He has a net worth of $500 million, and owns ten properties. As of August 2022, the average salary in Pennsylvania is about $53,391. It will be interesting to see Oz debate Fetterman, especially when the only point he makes is that he was endorsed by Donald Trump.

J.D. Vance was once a never-Trumper. Aside from calling Trump “reprehensible”, he claimed that Donald Trump could become “America’s Hitler” in a text message sent to his law school roommate. So what does J.D. Vance do? Base his entire campaign on Donald Trump. On major issues, Vance has managed to weave tenets of Trumpism into every debate, interview, and town hall he participates in.

We always say that a monarchical system of government is the antithesis of the United States, but the MAGA faction of the Republican party has treated Trump like a Monarch. They know that they cannot win a Republican election without selling their morals for Donald Trump. Call it greed, a lust for power. It’s truly disheartening.

What is the MAGA Republican? The MAGA politician is blindly loyal to President Trump. No questions asked. He tells them to jump, they ask how high.  And the truth is whatever President Trump decides. If President Trump declares that the 2020 election was rigged, then it was rigged, despite the overwhelming evidence arguing against this. If President Trump brushes off the dangers of COVID-19, the MAGA politician must do so.

Why was the United States hit harder by COVID than other countries? Science points to many things: a lack of medical equipment, weak regulations regarding mask-wearing, and an incoherent and oftentimes contradictory strategy from the federal government. Ask Trump that question and he’ll say it’s due to the massive testing campaign ushered by his administration. 

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be fine”

• President Trump, January 22, 2020

More than one million Americans have died from COVID. 

In the MAGA Kingdom, truth is malleable. The moral compass is broken. Moral absolutism turns into Moral relativism. The Republican Party has an identity crisis. To win elections, the Republican Party must moderate its views and most importantly ditch Trump.

Hostile Institutions: The FBI and the Government’s War Against Its Citizens

On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago with authorization from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Ostensibly, the raid was authorized because of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified material. Setting aside the matter of the FBI looking the other way while Hillary Clinton maintained an unauthorized private email server in her basement and had aides smash her used phones, Trump is well within his rights to possess the material in question under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. But lest apathetic observers content themselves with the short-sighted prospect that their primary choices in 2024 may be made easier, President Trump’s statement that “they’re after you” has held true of the FBI for decades and is more pertinent than ever before.

Formed in 1908 to deal with the growing threat of anarchists in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was undoubtedly founded with the noble intention of bridging the gaps between state law enforcement agencies. However, as the FBI took an increasingly influential role in enforcement of Prohibition and the “war on crime,” it began to stretch its powers in questionable fashion. Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in the wiretapping of potential suspects, later being limited to bugging operations under the Communications Act of 1934. The Bureau took the opportunity in 1939 to compile a list of individuals who would be taken into custody in the event of a war. The FBI took action hours after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, arresting thousands over the course of a few weeks without warrants.

The FBI only became more brazen during the latter period of Hoover’s time as director. Under the Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit political organizations that the FBI deemed to be problematic. FBI agents resorted to disinformation, harassment, blackmail, and even violence in order to achieve these ends. Perhaps the most notable target of the COINTELPRO operations was Martin Luther King Jr. King was subjected to surveillance by the FBI, who then proceeded to send King an anonymous letter encouraging him to take his own life, which was accompanied by audio recordings of King’s alleged sexual dalliances.

A pair of incidents in the 1990s stand out as the most egregious examples of the FBI’s willingness to shed the blood of people it deemed to be enemies of the government, regardless of their actual innocence. After failing to show up to court on a firearms charge because of scheduling confusion in 1992, Randy Weaver refused to surrender to federal authorities due to fears of a setup. After an encounter with U.S. Marshals in which Weaver’s son, Sammy, was killed by law enforcement and Weaver’s friend Kevin Harris killed Deputy Marshal William Degan — for which Harris was later acquitted on self-defense grounds — the FBI set rules of engagement that allowed them to essentially shoot on sight. On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver as he was paying respects to his deceased son, then fired through the door of the cabin at Kevin Harris as Weaver fled to safety. Horiuchi struck and killed Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was standing behind the door with her baby in her arms. After surrendering days later, Weaver was acquitted of all charges except for missing his original court date and bail violation, for which he was released after sixteen months. The FBI was never called to account for its actions in the Weaver case.

One year later, after a botched ATF raid on the Mount Carmel compound over questionable firearms charges, the FBI began a 51 day siege of the Branch Davidians religious organization. During the siege, the FBI cut the power and water to the compound, blasted loud music and sounds at night, and ran over the vehicles of the Branch Davidians. On the final day of the siege, having grown impatient with the slow progress of negotiations, the FBI launched an assault with tear gas on the compound. The building burst into flames and burned to the ground, killing 76 people, including 25 children. The FBI admitted that the tear gas used in the assault was flammable, but has maintained that the Branch Davidians, and not the FBI, was responsible for the fire at the compound.

The American people are not exempt from similar treatment simply by virtue of the fact that they do not live on an isolated mountain range or in a religious compound in Waco. An organization that has overseen extensive espionage and the deaths of numerous innocent men, women, and children is unlikely to treat political enemies any differently than targets of its other operations, particularly considering the extremely partisan nature of the current administration. Indeed, parents who are concerned about the ideological indoctrination of the public school system have already been framed by the National School Boards Association as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to President Joe Biden, calling for FBI involvement. 

Rather than investigate concerned parents and the former President of the United States, it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.