Friday, February 26, 2021

Math: The Latest Battleground in the War Against Truth - Janet Levy


​ by Janet Levy

Across America, math teaching practices that were considered essential are suddenly being condemned as racist.

In George Orwells dystopian novel 1984, set in the superstate of Oceania, the government propagates the absurd equation 2 + 2 = 5. Through steady indoctrination, and under the ever-watchful Thought Police, the citizens accept it as an unquestionable truth. The equation symbolizes the extinction of free thought in repressive totalitarian societies: facts, truths and objective reality are subordinated to political will and twisted to serve the authoritarian goals of the Party and its leader, Big Brother.

Something similar is happening in many American schools. An eerie Orwellian shadow is being cast over math instruction. The focus is insidiously shifting from arithmetic, geometry, and algebra to critical race theory, ethnic studies, and intersectionality. Ridiculous as it may sound, an objective field of knowledge is being thrust into the realm of social experimentation. Students are being taught not how to think but what to think. Instead of developing critical thinking skills, todays math classes stipulate that students hold particular views about the world and instruct them on how they must extinguish what is posited as wrongthink.”

Across America, math teaching practices that were considered essential are suddenly being condemned as racist, requiring students to display the steps in solving a problem is now deemed white supremacist; teacherscorrections, and even the concept of a correct answer, are considered suspect or undesirable; polite interaction, raising hands before commenting or asking questions, and maintaining order in the classroom are viewed as reinforcing paternalism and condemned as power hoarding.”

This idiocy has swept, among others, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the fruit of the worst practices of monopolistic capitalism but now quick to align itself with left-liberal, pseudo-egalitarian causes. The foundation is providing more than $140 million to A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,’ an organization of 25 educational institutions that contend that math is synonymous with white supremacy and upholds capitalist, imperialistic and racist” views. Pathway offers a five-part toolkit and videoconferences to make educators reflect on their own biases” and commit to advance math equity” by understanding that students of color use math differently than do white students.

In Oregon, the department of education is pushing Pathways course for teachers, which focuses less on math instruction and more on identity politics. The concept of math as being objective is challenged. Educators are encouraged to dispense with the idea of right and wrong answers and develop sensitivity toward the supposed harm and authoritarianism perpetuated by solving for the correct answer. In class, they must come up with two or more answers, no matter right or wrong. All this in the service of deconstructing racism and dismantling white supremacy.”

This wholesale revamping of math instruction through a naked cultivation of guilt in those who are white or privileged is most unfortunate for the very minorities it seeks to empower. Students from minority groups, who score significantly lower than whites on standardized tests, need enhanced instruction and support, not a shifting of goalposts that does away with right answers.

The latest (2019) survey of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the Nations Report Card, indicates that, at the 4th grade level, compared to whites, blacks and Hispanics scored 10% and 7% lower respectively, while Asians scored 4.5% higher. At the 8th grade, blacks and Hispanics scored 11% and 8% lower than whites respectively, with Asians ahead of whites by 6%. And by the 12th grade, blacks and Hispanics scored 20% and 16% lower than whites respectively, while Asians were ahead of whites by 2%.

The rational remedy would be to work to improve math teaching material and methods so that the disadvantaged minorities learn better and score better. But the focus instead is on bringing down higher-achieving students (whether majority white or minority Asian) for the sake of a dubious equity. Rather than find ways to increase access to, and improve education, the emphasis is on rigging the system so that correct answers have no significance. This is clearly a disservice to all students and to education itself: the focus on oppression and victimhood undermines hard work and negates personal responsibility for subject mastery.

Math professor Alan Sokal debunked much of postmodern humbug in the humanities through his 1996 hoax and 1998 book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern IntellectualsAbuse of Science. Like Orwell before him, Sokal lambasted vague jargon that detracts from clear thinking. The new buzzword intersectionalityis the sort of claptrap Orwell and Sokal would ridicule. It purports to address all potential grievance groups a person may belong to. As an umbrella term for the legion of imagined injustices and barriers to learning -- race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability -- it awards credit for membership in more than one grievance group.

In the name of the intersectionality’ of grievances real or imagined, a campaign against rationality is under way. One of its strategies is systematic guilt inducement. The idea is that whiteness and its institutions are oppressive and must be dismantled. And whites must be made to feel guilty about their skin color.

In a New York school, white parents were recently sent a Whiteness” Manifesto with eight potential white identities” and asked to disavow their whiteness by becoming white traitors” and advocating white abolition.”

In California, the model ethnic studies curriculum purports to educate students on oppression as it relates to patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, exploitative economic systems, ableism, ageism, anthropocentrism, xenophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, antiblackness, anti-indigeneity, Islamophobia and transphobia. It furthers absurd notions such as this one: Jewish students hide behind conditional whiteness”, thereby gaining racial privilege by dropping ethnic markers if they have light skin. How can such a divisive curriculum foster learning? It can only produce resentment and induce shame. Indeed, what does it have to do with the educational process, academic achievement and the development of critical thinking skills?

The federal government, too, has gotten into this dangerous game. Its sponsoring training for civil servants that exhorts whites to address their contribution to racism and invest in race-based growth.” Diversity training is costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has wormed itself into schools by establishing a BLM School National Week of Action in at least 20 major cities around the country. Its agenda, premised on oppression and white supremacy in schools, is incorporated in K-12 curriculums year-round. By portraying blacks as victims, not able architects of their future, it aims to transform schools into sites of resistance to a system that devalues black lives.”

It seems that schools have abdicated the job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. They want to focus on critical race theory and foster a creeping anti-Americanism. Rather than develop a unifying American identity, these programs encourage divisiveness and stereotyping. They let the sciences, critical thinking, and other useful academic skills go untended, and hammer home the preposterous idea that failure or success is decided by race, class, gender, and sexuality. Personal effort does not matter, so success has to be redefined for certain groups while the rest are scapegoated for their achievements.

Is 2+2 = 4? Not anymore. The Thought Police of intersectionality' will decide the numerous right answers.

Image: Pixabay


Janet Levy  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

John Kerry meetings with Iran and Michael Flynn talks with Russian officials: Two different treatments? - Evie Fordham


​ by Evie Fordham

Trump said Kerry should be prosecuted under the Logan Act

Iranian refugee: John Kerry meeting with Iran during Trump's presidency was 'anti-American'

A report alleging John Kerry may have colluded with Iran when meeting with its foreign minister during the Trump administration is drawing comparisons to the situation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to giving false statements to the FBI that included statements regarding his communications with a Russian ambassador. 

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired four-star general and Fox News senior strategic analyst, told Fox News that the two instances deal with different issues but he can see why some would draw a correlation.


"In terms of what Secretary Kerry was doing and other members of the Biden administration, in my judgment is appalling and it’s reckless and significantly irresponsible," Keane said in an interview.

"What we’re not used to is previous government officials actually colluding and talking to our enemies, and I emphasize enemy because that is who Iran really is. In the past 40 years, there is no nation-state that has killed more Americans than Iran," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gives a press conference after a meeting on Syria, in Paris, Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gives a press conference after a meeting on Syria, in Paris, Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus) (Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

Keane said there is a "considerable difference" between Flynn's and Kerry's situations, adding that "Gen. Flynn, as the incoming national security advisor, certainly talking to the Russian ambassador is part of his responsibility… which is normal protocol."

Biden administration officials, including John Kerry and Robert Malley, had meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif during the Trump administration that were orchestrated to undermine President Biden's predecessor, a recent report from The Washington Times claims. Kerry has been open about the fact that he met with Zarif at least twice during the Trump administration, prompting Trump to say he should be prosecuted under the Logan Act because of the meetings.

The Logan Act bars private citizens from engaging with foreign nations in unauthorized talks that undermine U.S. foreign policy.

Zarif held meetings with Obama administration veterans who could return to power "to devise a political strategy to undermine the Trump administration" and usher in softer diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran, according to an unnamed former senior U.S. official cited by The Washington Times.

Kerry is now Biden's climate envoy, and Malley, who was part of creating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities, is Biden's Iran envoy.


A judge dismissed the criminal case against Flynn in December. Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador included Russia's response to U.S. sanctions and a UN security council resolution regarding Israel. Flynn also admitted to filing paperwork under the Foreign Agents Registration Act that contained misrepresentations regarding business with Turkey. His sentencing was delayed due to his cooperation with prosecutors.

In 2019, Flynn began to claim innocence in the case, citing alleged FBI misconduct. FBI records were produced that called their interview into question, including handwritten notes that indicated an internal question as to whether the interview was meant to extract truth from Flynn or to get him to lie so authorities could pressure him with prosecution or termination. 

Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, leaves federal court in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, file)

Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, leaves federal court in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, file)

"What was not routine is that Gen. Flynn was investigated, the investigators recommended to close the case based on no evidence of wrongdoing, but the top FBI leadership kept it open," Keane said.

What Kerry and other Democrats spoke about with Zarif is unknown. However, the Washington Times reported that while former President Donald Trump's attempts to set up a back channel with Iranian officials, meant to defuse tensions, fizzled, Democrats like Malley were meeting with Zarif.

"We don’t know exactly why he rejected it, but we can speculate that Malley, who’s now a part of the Biden team, was possibly telling Zarif that he should wait out the Trump administration and get a better deal," Keane said.

Fox News' inquiry to Kerry was not immediately returned.

Fox News' Ronn Blitzer, Bill Mears and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.


Evie Fordham  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

When Will American Jews Wake Up? - Eileen F. Toplansky


​ by Eileen F. Toplansky

When will the liberal Jews finally renounce the Democratic Party of Jihad that has at its helm people who despise them?

The Red-Green Alliance of radical leftists and Islamic jihadists have the same goal of destroying America.  As such, it has been a continuing conundrum why liberal Jews support such groups' philosophies.

The question of why Jews vote against their own self-interest was analyzed in Norman Podhoretz's 2009 book Why Are Jews Liberals? One overriding reason was that most liberal Jews claim their liberalism stems "from the commandments of Judaism or more broadly the 'spirit' of the Jewish 'religious tradition.'" They often mention the term tzedakah. 

But tzedakah, which means righteousness, is not social justice.  Liberal Jews have taken the left-wing notion of social justice and have distorted the idea of tzedakah to align with radical left-wing ideology. Social justice involves but is not limited to "restrictions on free speech; restrictions on due process protections; support for the Black Lives Matter movement; mass release of criminals from prison; open borders; [and] race and sex preferences in education and employment." This is not Jewish teaching at all.

Also, "support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction [BDS] movement is part of the social justice creed, and mob violence is advocated to enforce any and all of these objectives" -- hardly Torah mandates.

Hence, to  liberal Jews, affirmative action which rests on the premise that racism must be used to end racism is allegedly mandated by their interpretation of Jewish beliefs.  Consequently, Rabbi Sidney Schwartz of the Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values in 2008 asked "[i]sn't it obvious that social justice is the primary mandate of Judaism?"

And herein is the "fatal flaw of those liberal Jews who would cite Jewish law as the reason for the embrace of leftwing ideology.  If the theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community since they are the most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and whose lives are the most shaped by its commandments."  Yet, the Orthodox "oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews -- precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law," i.e., positive euthanasia, premarital sex, unequal justice under the law.

Podhoretz maintains that Jewish liberals are embracing views that are actually in conflict with the teachings of Judaism.

For most American Jews, "liberalism is not… merely a necessary component of Jewishness; it is the very essence of being a Jew.  Nor is it a 'substitute for religion';  it is a religion in its own right, complete with its own catechism and its own dogmas and... obdurately resistant to facts that undermine its claims and promises."

Dennis Prager states that "[d]espite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world.  The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every 'ism' of the Left."

Thus, it is a challenge "to shake a liberal Jew's belief in the Left and in the Democratic Party"  especially when the Jew asserts that his liberal views are entirely the product of rational inquiry. Yet, when the views are held up to scrutiny,  they fall apart.  It needs to be emphasized that in voting left, "Jews are actually voting against the interests of the poor and the underdogs of our society."

Moreover, Rabbi Seymour Siegel states that "[l]iberalism expects Jews… to yield their own interests for the sake of  'progress' and 'justice' even when the Jewish community will be harmed."

The Biden administration has fully embraced the Critical Race Theory -- an ideology that states that one race is clearly not worthy and must be shamed and demeaned because of its melanin level.   Echoes of Nazism, anyone?

Then consider that Biden, who imbibed Obama's belief system, is busy installing radical jihadists to carry out anti-Semitic policies. Joe Biden, "whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, ended support for American allies fighting the Houthis" and removed the group from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Houthis' motto is, “Death to America.”  The motto of Iran’s Houthi  Jihadis is, "Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam."

Joe Biden's nominee for undersecretary of civilian security, democracy, and human rights, Uzra Zeya "played a key role in assembling a book claiming the nefarious influence of the 'Israel lobby.'" As a staffer, Zeya worked for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "a staunchly anti-Israel publishing group that promoted claims about Jewish media control and dual loyalty to Israel."

Moreover, Biden has chosen Hady Amr as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine. A year after 9/11, Hady Amr wrote that he "was inspired by the Palestinian intifada" as he discussed his work as the national coordinator of the anti-Israel Middle East Justice Network. In essence, "Biden’s move puts Amr, who has repeatedly advocated for a deal with Hamas, and worked closely with  a terror state [Qatar] that serves as a major backer of Hamas, in a key policy [making] position."

David Wurmser asserts that "Joe Biden has named notorious anti-Semites and Israel-haters to key national security posts." 

This dangerous process of normalizing anti-Semitism, especially on the far Left, thereby validating it, has now moved the very pinnacles of power in the United States. Regrettably, the Biden Administration is oblivious to this problem and is allowing leftist radicals to place notorious anti-Semites and Israel haters in key national security posts.

It would appear that the cognitively compromised Biden is being influenced by Barack Obama and his allies.  After all, the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates for the extermination of Israel and the Islamic jihadist infiltration of America, was always welcome to the Obama White House

Moreover the Obama-era official Ben Rhodes recently invoked anti-Semitic tropes in an anti-Israel tirade. That he is a Holocaust Memorial Museum board member tells more about the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mourn for dead Jews but distort the truth about those who wish to live safely as Jews in Israel.

In addition, the Biden administration is tapping Maher Bitar to be the senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council. In fact, Bitar spent his college years as an executive board member of the Students for Justice in Palestine, and he organized events at Georgetown featuring Hamas speakers who advocated for terrorism  Thus, Bitar who spent years at the forefront of efforts to boycott Israel and has called Israel an apartheid state, would be "coordinating the intelligence content the president sees."

Whatever the reason, i.e., political payoff, true ignorance, or personal animus to Jews and Israel, Biden is filling his administration with many who have strongly anti-Jewish or pro-BDS positions despite the fact that the BDS movement is blatantly anti-Semitic.

When will the liberal Jews finally renounce the Democratic Party of Jihad that has at its helm, people who despise them? Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib embrace outright anti-Semitism. Yet  Jews remain besotted to liberalism and mute in the face of their vicious attacks.

Rabbi Berel Wein has written that "[o]ne of the tested methods of discovering whether the deadly gas methane is present in a coal mine is to place a canary in the suspected area. If the canary dies from the... undetectable gas, then everyone clears out of that mine posthaste. The canary is the forecaster of things to come, whether pleasant or unpleasant."

Sadly, "in the history of civilization, the Jewish people have performed the role of being the canary in the mine. How the world treats the Jewish people - and especially now the State of Israel, eerily forecasts future world conflicts - certainly for the Western world."

American Jewry -- when will you wake up?


Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Obama comes out of the woodwork, touts reparations for blacks - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

He's trying to paper over the problems of the Great Society welfare redistribution which did so much damage to the black community. Naturally, he blames bitter clingers...

Anxious to get himself back in the spotlight, President Obama came out of his lair, and for the first time, touted support for reparations for black people, owing to the U.S. history of slavery.

According to Fox News:

Obama said he believes reparations are "justified" and that "there’s not much question that the wealth… the power of this country was built in significant part — not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it, but a large portion of it — was built on the backs of slaves."


The former president claimed that a reparations proposal didn’t make its way through the lawmaking process during his presidency due to "the politics of White resistance and resentment." 

"And what I saw during my presidency was the politics of White resistance and resentment. The talk of 'welfare queens' and the talk of the 'undeserving' poor. And the backlash against affirmative action," Obama said.

"All that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparations program struck me as, politically, not only a nonstarter but potentially counterproductive."

Which happens to be the wokester signature issue of the day, now that the federal government is turning on the money spigots for every cause under the sun.

Fox pointed out that this wasn't Obama's earlier position on reparations, an idea he opposed during his 2008 election. But instead of saying he'd changed his mind owing to the need to be "on the cutting edge" of fashionable leftist thought, and therefore still relevant, the vacay-happy ex-president declared that only the resentful bitter clingers of this country were responsible for stopping him in his redistribution-of-the-wealth socialist dream. In other words, whitey did it.

Naturally, he was supercilious and patronizing, demonstrating clearly enough that he hasn't changed a bit:

Obama went on to say it was "perfectly understandable why working-class White folks, middle-class White folks, folks who are having trouble paying the bills or dealing with student loans, wouldn't be too thrilled" about the prospect of "a massive program that is designed to deal with the past but isn't speaking to their future."

That line above is strikingly similar to his signature: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." 

See, pudknockers, he's got your number. He knows you better than you know yourself. And the only reason you think this is a bad idea is that it isn't about 'the future.'

So many things wrong with this statement it's hard to unpack.

Number one, very few people in the U.S. bear any responsibility, ancestral or otherwise, for slavery. The U.S. has some 300,000,000 million people, largely owing to the effects of mass immigration as well as natural population growth.

In the South just ahead of the Civil War, about 1.7 million people were in families that owned slaves, or 30.8% of the entire white free Southern population.

According to a leftist researcher at Duke University, whose analysis nevertheless has some merit:

The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners. “That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey. So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.

 I am inclined to agree with him on the percentage, because slavery in the South saw most of its growth after 1850, and there had been a cotton commodity boom, with the South holding a near-monopoly.

But it remains a mighty small percent of the current U.S. population responsible for perpetrating slavery. One area where the professor goes off the rails is that he counts entire families as slave holders, which would include kids, who would have been the majority in any Victorian-era household, those same kids the open borders lobby say "had no choice" in their parents' decision. They may have benefited from slave labor but it wasn't by choice.

What's more, all of that wealth generated by slavery was destroyed. The cost to the South of the Civil War by the war's end has been estimated at $3 billion. The "value" assigned to the slaves was $2.7 billion. And the GDP of the area was $735,000,000 (vs. the North's $3.365 billion) by this estimate. The Civil War wiped out at one swoop the entire calculated value of the slave population because the people were of course freed, zeroing out that claimed value, while the infrastructural and other accumulated capital value of the place got wiped out in the war itself. The South remained poor and dependent on sharecropping and cotton for about a century after the war's end. The wealth now seen in the South is recent and not built on any of that earlier wealth.

Meanwhile, let's sort out who pays and who gets paid.

What does the guy whose family was slave holders on one side, and slaves on the other, get? What does the illegal alien, who absolutely nothing to do with America's economic development, pay or get? What responsibility do the vast majority of Americans descended from immigrants pay? Does that include African immigrants, whose ancestors may have sold the ancestors of today's black Americans into slavery? And who's to say all slave-holding families were monoliths? What's the responsibility of the son of a slaveholder in a border state or some place like Tennessee who decided to fight for the North? Or the Southern Illinois kid who decided to fight for the South? In a brother-against-brother war, that kind of thing happened. And let's talk about Kamala Harris, whose family in Jamaica actually held and sold slaves -- do we put her on the reparations list, or the cough-it up list? And what of the millions of people who don't know who their ancestors were? Pay? Or get paid? What of the people who can show descendence from slaves but appear to be white? Should they get reparations based on blood percentage, despite experiencing absolutely no cultural or social consequences of appearing to be black? The reality, is at this point, is that it's impossible to sort out the good guys and bad guys among the ancestral populations without a lot of fraud going on, and that's assuming the idea of descendents paying for the misdeeds of their fathers has merit at all, which it does not in a free society where everyone presumably has individual free will.

What Obama is trying to do is cover up the failings of the Great Society, the vast 1960s-era welfare system associated with failed president Lyndon Baines Johnson, which did more to destroy the black family, which is responsible for the success of any group of people more than anything.

During Jim Crow and well into the 20th century, the black family, even with discrimination, was stronger and more resilient than the families of whites. Incomes and education levels rose sharply, in stark contrast to the unintended consequences of the Great Society, which almost literally forced black men from the home and their families. The horrible program decimated the black family and contributed to a huge host of social problems that come of young men anywhere being forced to grow up without the guidance of their fathers. That's why black social indicators have fallen and lugubrious liberal and leftist "help" for the black community is effectively poison.

Obama's a bigtime supporter of state welfare handouts, in that big love he has for expanded government power. His yelling for reparations is a means of hiding the fact that Democrat policies have devastated the black family, and forced many to need remedies. The remedies, though, are things he can't handle: Unseparated families, schools that teach with results to show, a fair and evenly applied rule of law, work opportunities based on a business climate that permits job creation, and a knowledgable celebration of our common American culture.

None of those things happen under a redistributionist society that he's always championed. As usual, he's a divider and now he's found himself a fashionable vehicle to express it with his call to reparations. What Obama should be doing in ascertaining blame for the troubles in the black community is doing what he does best: Looking in the mirror.  

Monica Showalter 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden, Kerry and climate – 5 dirty secrets behind their decarbonization plans - Rebecca Grant


​ by Rebecca Grant

On Friday, President Joe Biden pledged climate action at the virtual G7

How Biden climate policies could impact 2022 races

On Friday, President Joe Biden pledged climate action at the virtual G7 and teased an upcoming major summit on Earth Day, April 22, 2021.   

Deep decarbonization is what Team Biden wants – the complete end of carbon fuel for electricity, cars, trucks and industrial production. Major economies must "chart a path to deep decarbonization," former Secretary of State John Kerry, who is special presidential envoy for climate, said Jan. 21. It’s all about finding another way to power our planet. 

What’s that add up to? According to Kerry, the U.S. must phase out coal five times faster, phase in renewables six times faster, and bring in electric vehicles 22 times faster. Oh my.   


I love trees and rivers and clean air. But realize, there are dirty secrets behind this all-out drive to decarbonization. Here are five.   

1. Wind and Solar Can’t Meet US Electricity Demand Now or in 2050   

On Feb. 8, the Department of Energy projected that coal and natural gas will still contribute nearly 40% of U.S. electricity generation in 2050. Wind and solar power will increase but they aren’t ready to meet the huge demand for electricity without fossil fuels and nuclear power in the mix.   

2. China’s Not Ready to Go Green and is Still Building Coal-Fired Electricity Plants 

China is the world’s biggest polluter.  China generates 28% of the planet’s yearly carbon dioxide emissions and won’t even start to cut back carbon emissions until 2030.  

Yes, Xi Jinping has a plan to get China to net-zero emissions in 2060, 10 years after everyone else. However, China’s plan starts with increasing carbon emissions for 10 years, then radically scaling back. Huh? Fact is, China can’t slack off economic growth. Even down the road, China’s plan won’t stop all emissions, it just includes a lot of offsets from carbon capture and planting trees.   

In my opinion, it would be easier to verify a nuclear arms control agreement (which China won’t join) than to track China’s true status on greenhouse gas emissions. 

3. Biden Ordered the Military to Tackle the Climate Crisis 

Speaking of national security, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin declared "climate considerations" an essential element of national security on Jan. 27. The military has already dabbled in clean energy. You’ll find solar panels on military bases, and the U.S Air Force got a green fuel award for flying a B-52 bomber with synthetic fuel in 2006.  

I fear Team Biden is exploiting our genuine love for our environment in the USA to push an agenda that could hurt Americans. 

What’s new is that Team Biden wants sweeping involvement by the military and perhaps more important, the defense budget involved in climate change technology experiments. Austin’s directive covers everything from climate risk in wargames to overall defense strategy. Scary stuff, given the slate of national security threats from China, Russia, Iran and others.   

4. Clean Energy Is Big Business, If the Fossil Fuel Gang Can Be Pushed Aside 

Global investment in renewables will exceed $10 trillion through midcentury, said Kerry. Sadly, the hype around the Paris climate accords covers up the brawl between fossil fuels and renewables. Team Biden is directing U.S. government money away from "carbon" coal, oil and gas to renewables. The Jan. 27 White House climate directive orders federal funding not to directly subsidize fossil fuels.   

It’s complicated, but renewable energy isn’t big enough or efficient enough to dominate the market itself yet, so it needs help. It requires tax incentives such as wind power production tax credits, recently extended by Congress. Your tax dollars are the only way to make "clean" energy cheaper right now.   

5. Pushing Wall Street Money to Renewables 

Despite all this, it’s no secret that Kerry wants Wall Street money committed to climate goals.  Kerry has for years rallied Wall Street investors like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to green energy. The recent climate policy actions by the White House plus the slew of incentives already in place aim to stimulate market demand for renewables. When you consider that Berkshire Hathaway owns 7% of the wind turbines in the U.S., it’s probably too late to stop this juggernaut. All that cash from globalization has to go somewhere. 

While I’m skeptical of Team Biden’s motives, there’s no doubt that most Americans really care about the environment and worry about climate change. I fear Team Biden is exploiting our genuine love for our environment in the USA to push an agenda that could hurt Americans. 

Why can’t Team Biden put some passion into longstanding problems, like cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay? Environmental action is hard, expensive work and many at the state and local level are striving to enact policies that keep tree cover and cherish watersheds.   

As a senator, Biden preserved an exquisite piece of Delaware shoreline at Cape Henlopen State Park. I wish his administration would force more Chesapeake Bay cleanup, which involves tough action by Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.   

You’d think Team Biden could pull that off. It would be a better use of time than chasing empty words from China.  


Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst based in Washington, D.C.  She earned her Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics at age 25 then worked for RAND and on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Since founding IRIS Independent Research, she has specialized in research for government and aerospace industry clients ranging from analysis of military campaigns to projects on major technology acqusition such as the B-21 bomber. Follow her on Twitter at @rebeccagrantdc


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Protecting American Children from Today’s Educational Activists - Jason D. Hill


​ by Jason D. Hill

A healthy way to begin defending our children from leftist indoctrination.


A friend of mine told me an apocryphal story that left me with a cold shudder. He is an old-fashioned left-leaning "liberal" and a strong advocate of public education. All his children attend public schools. In fact, he is vehemently opposed to the idea of promoting private schools on the premise that its implementation will result in a more stratified society because, he believes, poor whites and blacks will be disproportionately disqualified from attending such institutions.

In good faith, he has always entrusted his children’s education to what I had typically referred to as Government Schools. He was confident that his children would receive a robust education from K-12 grade.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, he was forced to monitor the classroom activities of his children. Unemployment had left him more time to inconspicuously sit-in -- especially on the classes of his 6th grader son.

He was shocked, one afternoon, to come upon an assignment being conducted during an English class in which all the white students in the zoom online course were required to place their arms beside a brown paper bag. How his 6th grader had acquired a crisp brown paper bag was a mystery to him. The teacher asked them if they noticed a difference in color between their skin and the brown paper bag. All of the white students nodded, and some verbally assented. The teacher asked them if the color of the bag looked close to the color of some of the students identified as black in the class. His son peered at the zoom screen and raised the icon button identifying his acknowledgement. The teacher then announced with full moral rectitude and intransigence the following:

If your skin color is different from the color of the paper bag, then you are part of a problem in America known as systemic racism that does irreparable harm to all black and brown people in America. Further, if your skin color is different from the brown paper bag and you are identified as white you enjoy something called white privilege which means you are practicing racism every day without knowing it.

Each such student that had a different color than the brown paper bag bore a collective guilt. The teacher then went on to ask the class if they had ever heard the term, “Reparations.”

Out of some sense of visceral, atavistic paternal protection, my friend slammed down his son’s computer and told him to go to his room for a while. He said he stood with his fingers pressed into the metal cover of the computer, shaking with incredulity.

I explained to him that guilt implied wrong-doing, and that because his son at age twelve had committed no egregious harm against any black person that he would eventually grow to feel a burgeoning sense of resentment. Over time, as his mind grew more focused and the charges against him repeated had been codified into a cultural norm, he would feel that he was the real cause of all harms directed at black people. I said that something evil and sinister was going to take root in his son’s psyche.

My friend grew alarmed. But I pressed on. His son, I told him, would grow to feel resentment towards black people. It would be mild at first; a contemptuous discharge fueled by a growing sense of his superiority and empowerment that he, by the power of his whiteness, could cause so much harm and that he, by that same magical power of whiteness, could alleviate the misery and suffering of blacks. I told him it would not end well, His son’s curriculum would include a phalanx of black and white progressive nihilists who would call for the annihilation of “whiteness” which, his mind would come to understand as: the annihilation of all white people from the earth including himself. His son, I told him, runs the risk not just of becoming a racist, but of a white supremacist. Becoming a white supremacist, he will come to believe, will be his only default position from which to protect his life from the early stages of assault being waged against it -- starting with the seemingly benign comparison between his skin color and that of a brown paper bag. And all this from white liberals masquerading as anti-racists.

Be careful how you proceed with his education, I warned him. It is not too late for you to assume responsibility and assert control of his mind by extracting him from one of our many national security threats destroying our American civilization: our Government schools on the tertiary level, and our nation’s universities. The decision is yours.

Doubtless, readers have been keeping up with reports of how our public schools have become inundated with what is becoming known as “Culturally Responsive Teaching.” Teachers are required to implement “action civics” in the classroom, leading students in activism on behalf of various causes.

A school district in San Diego conducted a “white privilege training” for its white teachers who were told they were racist for being white, and for upholding racist ideas and policies. They were made to feel ashamed for teaching on stolen Native American land.

Seattle Public Schools also held racially charged teacher-training sessions that accused them, unequivocally, of murdering the souls of black children everyday through systemic institutionalized, anti-black, state-sanctioned violence. They, too, were told they were natural racists because of their mere possession of white skin, and that they had to self-consciously reject their “whiteness.” Any objection to their indictment of being racists, they were told, no matter how well-argued or factually grounded, would be dismissed as a reflex of their whiteness, as “lizard brain,” which was proof of their white fragility.

These stories come on the heels of decolonized courses in which Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer and other classics are expurgated from curricula in high schools and colleges in the United States (I cannot keep up). The idea first started by Rutgers that grammar is racist, has been extrapolated on to the disciplines of science and math -- they, as well, are racists disciplines, we’re being told.

It is obvious that today’s cultural activists are guilty of massive child abuse in our classrooms. They have criminalized independent thinking, logic, reason, and so, have ended up conceptually breaking the minds of our children. They have usurped the purpose of educational from one of learning to one of, ultimately, Marxist indoctrination and the destruction of the values that undergird American civilization. They are using children as political pawns, weapons of mass destruction, and objectified instruments in their war against the United Sates of America.

They have declared war on this country’s children and their precious minds -- openly, vulgarly, and with full forethought of malice.

It is time to apply an intransigent and implacable counterassault against their efforts. We know where they are and who they are.

The battle is, first, a philosophical one. We must proudly defend our first principles and our unassailable constitutive values that define America: our free market system of capitalism, our sacred Constitution and its Bill of Rights, a philosophy of individualism, reason, and American exceptionalism.

To destroy this movement, we must, first, abolish public education, that is, all government schools from K-12 to our public universities that have become national security threats and indoctrination centers for anti-American, and Marxist and post-modern ideologies. They have to be shut down. Your tax dollars cannot fund these institutions any longer.

A future secretary of education, and philosophically-minded future leaders must prepare for the complete eradication of the Department of Education. Education must be placed back in the hands of parents, and morally speaking, ought to be privatized. If as the New Cultural Leaders say, state teachers are racists -- then, alright, they must all be fired.

Private learning institutions should no longer receive any funding from the federal government, or from any state governing agencies that mandate an activist curricula.

This is a contentious position to hold. I am willing to entertain the idea of issuing school vouchers for the use of a child’s private school tuition. This is also a more divisive issue among reasonable people, as it involves the use of public funds to pay for a child’s education. Some will argue, therefore, that vouchers still involve the state’s role in education. A safer alternative, it seems to me, and one predicated on the moral principle that people are responsible for the procreative choices that they make -- not society -- is to implement a unilateral tax credit for education for all parents. All one would have to do to qualify is to have a child or children that one wishes to educate in a private school. One would not be taxed on the portion of one’s income that is needed to send one’s child to school. This would certainly dis-incentivize more people from having more children than they can afford to educate. Among competing private schools in a free market, it simply would not be in the fiscal interests of private educators to leave broad swaths of people outside the system. We have seen where the emergence of private online universities have provided a plethora of opportunities for those whose income levels do not permit easy entrance into traditional, high-tuition universities, to receive an education.

I think a conversation about the two possibilities outlined is a healthy way to begin rooting out the existence of government schools from our republic.

To fight a war, one must start at the root by defeating the adversary’s strategies and methods. Strategies will follow as I continue to write on this topic. For now, I simply want those brown paper bags destroyed, those government schools closed forever, and American children given back to the safety of their parents. They are innocent. The future is theirs. And they deserve a shot at making something magnificent of it, and of their minds.


Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression. Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democrats Turn the Thumbscrews to Make Us Suffer - Don Feder

​ by Don Feder

Tormenting us with our perpetual imaginary sins.


Everything the Democrat Party does should be seen not from an economic or a political perspective, but one of sin and suffering -- the suffering it imposes on us to expiate our imagery sins.

It came to me in a flash of insight when I heard of a now-disgraced bureaucrat (“an undersecretary of climate change” in Massachusetts) who told a gathering of his colleagues that to fight melting ice caps and rising sea levels  they would have to “break the will” of ordinary Americans, by “turning the screws” -- raising energy costs so high that they would have to “stop emitting.” Admirable candor from a functionary of the state with the soul of a Medieval torturer.

But it goes beyond the need to make us obey. Progressives believe Americans must be made to atone for our sins (environmental, racial, economic and national) with higher taxes and energy costs, a lower standard of living, crime, open borders, racial humiliation and national dissolution.

It’s not a power-grab as much as an attempt to force a sort of secular Calvinism on the nation.

Global Warming – Our sins here include the internal combustion engine and reliance on fossil fuel, leading to CO2 emissions said to cause depletion of the earth’s ozone layer.

Democrats demand that we expiate these sins through higher energy costs, homes that are cold in the winter and hot in the summer, gas so expensive that we’ll be forced to walk or bicycle instead of driving. If you offered AOC and the other Green New Dealers an energy source that was clean, cheap and abundant, they’d reject it out of hand because there’s no suffering involved.

Open borders – According to their holy writ, we must pay for the sins of colonialism, exploitation of the Third World, using an unfair share of the earth’s resources and treating “migrants” cruelly. Our suffering includes being forced to take in hordes of poor, uneducated, unskilled invaders, including a significant criminal element (through lack border enforcement and amnesties), which in turn will raise the costs of education, health care, criminal justice and welfare. But this is only right. If Hondurans are mired in poverty, it’s because we’ve exploited them, the left tells us.

Racial equity – To counter the sin of white supremacy, Caucasians must be made to suffer with reparations, riots, indoctrination of their children and public confessions of guilt. In some places, public schools are imposing a curriculum that forces students and parents to admit that their whiteness is a crime against the rest of humanity.  If this seems like an updated version of Maoist self-criticism sessions, that’s because it is.

Gun confiscation – Gun owners (all 72 million in the United States), manufacturers and the NRA are said to be responsible for crime and mass shootings by clinging to the outmoded idea of a 2nd. Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The sins of bitter-clingers must be expiated by taking away their means to self-defense and shaming them – making them understand that every time a whack job shoots up a school, theater, nightclub or concert they are to blame.

The Lockdown Culture – The sin is not “listening to the scientists” (which ones?) as Clueless Joe would have it – and not taking the pandemic seriously at the outset, unlike the Red Chinese. The suffering is destroying businesses on a whim (more than 110,000 restaurants have closed permanently), eliminating shopping and entertainment and forcing us to go through the silly rituals of social distancing and face masks (which the Great Fauci assured us were unnecessary in March).  Biden – who promised us the pain of a “dark winter” -- has made face masks the symbol of his administration, going so far as to tell us that donning a mask is our patriotic duty – unless you’re Nancy Pelosi getting your hair done at a pricey San Francisco salon or Gavin Newsom dining with lobbyists at a swank eatery.

 Socialism – What a wonderful way to spread the misery as widely as possible. Greedy capitalists are responsible for the plight of the masses, through unequal distribution of wealth. This must be rectified through income leveling, confiscation by taxation, in the name of fairness which (because competition is eliminated) results in a lower standard of living for just about everyone.

Given a choice between prosperity and what they call fairness, the Sanders and AOCs of the world – who are now driving the Democrat Party – will choose “fairness” every time, even if Venezuela and the rationing of toilet paper lie at the end of the road.

Biden is the perfect Great Leader for the grin-and-bear-it Democrats – dour, obsessive, guilt-mongering, insistent that we sinners bend to his will. Open borders, racial guilt, gun confiscation and a Green New Deal are pillars of his administration.

At the bottom of the sin and suffering paradigm is hatred – hatred of capitalism, hatred of Middle America and (at least subconsciously) hatred of the human race.

Besides sin and suffering, there’s also masochism. (Ayn Rand called it “the sanction of the victim.”)  Roughly half the population was complicit in putting Torquemada – progressivism’s grand inquisitor – in the White House cum torture chamber.

Now, if he can only remember where he put his thumbscrews.


Don Feder  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Speaks - Joseph Puder


​ by Joseph Puder

A sobering caution to Biden on his path with Iran.


Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi isn’t likely to return to his homeland anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, is he likely to succeed his deposed father Mohammad Reza as Shah of Iran in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, if Iran is to be liberated from its oppressive, radical, and messianic Ayatollahs regime, Reza Pahlavi would be considered a natural contender to serve as a future Iranian head of state. With a large supportive Iranian expatriate constituency in Los Angeles and in Europe, he is the obvious leader of the Iranian exile opposition to the Islamic Republic of the Ayatollahs.  

Reza Pahlavi was born on October 31, 1960, and married Yasmine Etemad-Amini in 1986. They have three daughters and reside in Bethesda, Maryland. In 1980, shortly after his father’s death and on his 20th birthday, Reza Pahlavi, declared himself to be the new Shah of Iran - Reza Shah II. The Jimmy Carter administration declined to recognize him, and instead recognized the Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

In his address to the International Society of Human Rights, on March 27, 2010, Reza Pahlavi declared: “Since the establishment of the clerical regime in Iran, both democracy and human rights have been grossly compromised. Not only did the people not gain political freedom, which some may have thought would be attained as a result of the ‘Islamic Revolution,’ but sadly they ended up losing practically all of the social freedoms which have been attained and enjoyed for a long time, particularly since the advent of the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the 20th Century.”

Honored with the Champion of Jewish Values International Awards Gala in New York on May 5th, 2016, Reza Pahlavi stated: “But while Iran has this proud history, my own compatriots have been held hostage for 37 years by a clerical regime that abuses the very notion of freedom. Since I left my beloved Iran, I have dedicated my life to fighting for my compatriots’ freedom and their human rights. I do appreciate the fact that, by recognizing my efforts, you have demonstrated your care and concern about the plight of the millions of Iranians who have suffered under the repression of the clerical regime ruling my homeland.”

Israel Hayom, the Israeli daily mass circulation Hebrew newspaper, conducted an exclusive interview with Reza Pahlavi on February 14, 2021. Reza Pahlavi’s conclusive points are as follows: 1. The Biden administration is on the wrong path in rushing to announce that it intends to re-join the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal). 2. Hate is the glue that holds the current Iranian regime together. 3. Most of the Iranian people view the Islamic Republic as a failure. 4. The Iranian people wish for peace with Israel. 

In alluding to the Biden administration, Pahlavi pointed out, knowing that the Americans pledged to return to the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the Iranian Ayatollahs rushed to increase the amount of uranium enrichment fivefold. He said, “They (The Biden Administration) would return to the nuclear deal when their sworn enemy (the Iranian regime), rushed to quintuple the rate of uranium enrichment.” Pahlavi added, “This is blackmail of the free world. The only smart solution for the Americans, the people of the region, and the Iranian people, is to support Iran’s struggle for freedom and democracy.”

Pahlavi explained that the West has entertained for over four decades the misconception that they (Americans and Europeans) might be able to change the Iranian regime’s behavior. The nuclear deal was motivated by just such a rationale. “It will not happen,” Pahlavi said. “The Iranians know that the regime is not led by its national interests, but by its corrupt and criminal interests. That is why in talks with foreign leaders, I explain to them that the only real solution is to support the needs of the Iranian people. The destructive actions of the regime are not beneficial to any long-term relationship with the free world.” Pahlavi mentioned the fact that Iranian activists have sent a letter to US President Joe Biden, expressing concern over the US planned return to the nuclear deal. Pahlavi doesn’t believe that Iran is just months away from producing a nuclear bomb, but he says, that the regime does not need the bomb to sow mayhem in the region.

Shifting gears, and dealing with Iran’s impact on the region, Pahlavi said, “With the economic benefits from the agreement ($150 billion in cash that was sent to Iran by the Obama administration), the regime controls three Arab capitals and frightens even more states. The agreement also helped support extremist Palestinians at the expense of moderates, and damaged Israel’s security.” Adding that, “In countries such as Iraq and Lebanon, where civilians fear militias such as Hezbollah, the financial damage had led to demonstrations against the effects of the Islamic Republic.” 

Asked whether he supported the Abrahamic Accords between Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (added by Sudan and Morocco), Pahlavi responded with a resolute “yes,” and “of course.” He pointed out that, “It is worth comparing the opportunities opened up to the young people in the participating countries with the suffering and misery of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.” He considered countries such as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the “Alliance of Progress.” He went on to say, “They (Bahrain and UAE) have gained social, cultural, educational, and health ties. However, the victory is not complete until Iran is freed from the darkness of resistance to the light of the alliance.” He suggested moreover, that as long as the Ayatollahs regime controls Iran, the country will never normalize relations with Israel.

Pahlavi explained that the Ayatollahs regime doesn’t define itself by what it supports, namely prosperity and progress for the Iranian people. Instead, the Ayatollahs regime defines itself by what they hate, and oppose. He said, “It is not a tactic, but hatred that will not go away. It is necessary for them to create a common enemy that will unite different factions. It’s the ideological glue that keeps the regime going.” As evidence, we have seen the routine parades organized by the regime, with banners and shouting “Death to America, Death to Israel,” and the burning of the American and Israeli flags. These are clear manifestations of the hate culture fostered by the Ayatollahs.

Pahlavi suggested that his sources in Iran pointed out the declining support for the regime even from within the establishment. The Iranian people, he said, see the Islamic Republic as a continued failure. What matters to the Ayatollahs is self-preservation. It is an Anti-Iranian regime that has taken the Iranian nation hostage. He is convinced that the Ayatollahs regime will fall soon. “In the last three years there has been such a drastic change that only few still believe that the young generation will agree to endure the oppressive regime.”  

Asked about relations with Israel should he assume power in Iran, Pahlavi said, “My goal is to liberate the country and establish a secular democracy based on the will of the people. I have no doubt that Cyrus’s children have a special place in their hearts for the people of Israel.”   

Pahlavi is head of the National Council of Iran for Free Elections, comprised of 30 opposition groups in exile. Reza Pahlavi may or may not reach his goal of leading his country to freedom and democracy, but the Iranian people are bound to unshackle themselves from the oppression of the Ayatollahs.

* * *

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore


Joseph Puder  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter