This is probably one of my least favorite subjects to cover, but it’s the sort of thing we need to remain aware of. Questions of self-defense, the castle doctrine and home security come up often enough, and they can impact nearly anyone in the country if your luck runs low. But a story from upstate New York is now making the rounds for an unusual reason. The Daily Signal has the story of Ronald Stolarczyk, who lives in the Utica, New York region. He found himself forced into a position where he had to use lethal force to save his life in his own home when armed intruders broke in. He thankfully survived (the intruders did not) but that turned out to only be the beginning of his problems.
[L]ook to the case of Ronald Stolarczyk of Oneida County, New York. He’s now facing felony charges for lawfully protecting himself against criminals without first getting the county’s permission to possess a handgun in his home—something that would cost him hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork.
The 64-year-old Stolarczyk was “minding his own business in his kitchen” one day when he heard voices coming from his garage. Stolarczyk tried simply waiting for the intruders to leave, but the two assailants soon ascended the stairs and attempted to enter his central living space.
Stolarczyk then yelled at the burglars to leave, hoping that knowledge of his presence would scare them away. The burglars were undeterred by his warning, and one even aggressively advanced toward him.
With two intruders in his garage and attempting to break into the rest of the house despite repeated verbal warnings, Stolarczyk retrieved his .38-caliber revolver and fired multiple shots at the intruders, killing both of them. He proceeded to immediately contact the police who arrived and determined that it was a case of self-defense, so the homeowner wouldn’t be charged with killing them. Sounds like a happy ending, right?
Not so much. Instead of charging Stolarczyk with murder, they charged him with illegal possession of a handgun and he’s now facing a possible sentence of four years. The case is complicated because of how he came to be in possession of the revolver. The gun belonged to his father, who shared the home with him. The father passed away, leaving all of his possessions (including the gun) to his son. There’s no report of him carrying it outside the home. It was simply in the house. But Stolarczyk never went through the mind-numbing process of trying to apply for a handgun permit in his home county.
It’s also worth noting that Stolarczyk was in such financial distress that he couldn’t even afford to keep the electricity on at his home, to say nothing of paying the endless fees involved in trying to get a permit to own a handgun. If this guy winds up doing time over a “crime” like this, there’s simply no justice in the unhinged state of New York.
Making it worth the click above, the Daily Signal walked through the entire process of attempting to get the permit that Stolarczyk lacked. You should read it. You could probably get permission to build a new nuclear power plant more quickly and cheaply than jumping through all of those hoops.
On Thursday, a member of the Polish parliament, deeply offended by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ callous use of the Holocaust by referring to the immigration processing centers on the U.S. border as concentration camps, fired off a blistering letter essentially accusing her of being someone who “cheapens the history, or uses it for political point-scoring.”
Dominik Tarczynski, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, tweeted a copy of the letter, accompanied by a statement that read, “With this letter, I am formally inviting @AOC to come to Poland, where Adolf Hitler set up the worst chain of concentration camps the world has ever seen, so that she may see that scoring political points with enflamed rhetoric is unacceptable in our contemporary Western societies.”
The letter started with Tarczynski asserting, “I am also a great fan and friend of the United States of America.” He then immediately segued to noting his “distress in having learned of your recent statements regarding concentration camps.”
After delineating the monstrous brutality of the murderous Nazi regime as they slaughtered six million Poles, Jews and non-Jews, Tarczynski said of the concentration camps, “It has caused a deep wound that persists on our proud Polish and European history that we must all deal with every single day, and that we reaffirm to one another can never be forgotten, and never allowed to happen again. This is why when someone cheapens the history, or uses it for political point-scoring, we become agitated and upset.”
Tarczynski offered to host Ocasio-Cortez on a visit to the infamous death camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Majdanek, noting, “At these camps and others, over three million human souls were extinguished, and millions more detained and affected directly.”
The text of the letter reads:
Dear Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,
My name is Dominik Tarczynski and I am a Member of Parliament in Poland where I serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I am also a great fan and friend of the United States of America.
I write to you out of distress in having learned of your recent statements regarding concentration camps.
As you should be aware, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) who led Germany, were responsible for the darkest period in my country’s and our whole continent’s history by devising a chain of concentration camps in order to exterminate those who they believed were subhuman, or a threat to their imperialistic machinations — this included both Jewish Poles and non-Jewish Poles and which resulted in the loss of six million of our citizens.
While under German Nazi occupation, a number of concentration camps were set up in my country, Poland. It has caused a deep wound that persists on our proud Polish and European history that we must all deal with every single day, and that we reaffirm to one another can never be forgotten, and never allowed to happen again.
This is why when someone cheapens the history, or uses it for political point-scoring, we become agitated and upset.
I understand that there are heightened tensions in your politics right now, but I would urge severe caution in attempting to leverage phrases such as “concentration camp” for political ends. It will lead nowhere good.
With this in mind, however, I wish to extend the olive branch of education to you, Congresswoman, and would be delighted if you would accept my offer to come to Poland and study the concentration camps here for real so that you can see first hand how different it is from your immigration processing centers on the U.S. border.
At your convenience, we could visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Majdanek.
At these camps and others, over three million human souls were extinguished, and millions more detained and affected directly.
I look forward to hearing back from you with the hope of setting up a trip to my country soon.
You speak often of partisanship, and I feel this is one area in particular where we can begin to live that ideal.
With this letter, I am formally inviting @AOC to come to Poland,where Adolf Hitler set up the worst chain of concentration camps the world has ever seen, so that she may see that scoring political points with enflamed rhetoric is unacceptable in our contemporary Western societies pic.twitter.com/ivOTfmiCfo
When a sitting congresswoman sides with our enemy over our own country, is that not newsworthy? Apparently the networks didn’t think so. They ignored a tweet sent Thursday by Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, where she blamed America for Iran shooting down one of our military’s drones. The networks, even cable news, were nowhere to be found Thursday evening or Friday morning.
Constitutional Flaw #1: Non-Republican Form of Government
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says in part that ”[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The United States is a constitutional republic, where people elect their senators and representatives at the national level. At the state level, this is copied by every state except for Nebraska, which has a unique unicameral Legislature. A Republican form of government, by its definition, means that people elect representatives to represent them in running the government. This is done so that the people are not encumbered with the daily operations and voting to run the state or federal government.
A fundamental problem with the NPVIC is that it is inherently not a republican form of government for a specific state to select that state’s Electors. Once a state Legislature decides to ask its citizens their preference through a popular vote, there must be a rational basis as to how the vote of the state’s citizens is used to select that state’s electors. It is not rational that the people’s decision could be overruled by the votes of citizens of unrelated states. The following comparison is between two states in the NPVIC who are at the extremes of the Popular Vote Range for the 2016 election.
Vermont has three electoral votes in our existing system and cast 315,067 votes for president in 2016. This constituted 0.23% of the total votes in the nation. Under the NPVIC, Vermont will give other states 99.77% of the power to select its state’s electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. Presently, there is a total pool of 538 electors, and 0.23% constitutes 1.2 electors. Vermont has irrationally thrown away its automatic control of three Electoral Votes for an effective control of 1.2 electoral votes.
At the other extreme is the state of California, which has 55 electoral votes in the present system. In the 2016 presidential election, there were 14,181,595 votes cast for president in California, which constituted 10.4% of the nation’s total votes. California will give other states 89.6% of the power to select its state’s electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. California has traded 55 electoral votes for an effective 56 electoral votes. At least California’s decision would result in a higher number of effective electoral votes for the State, but it would still hand 89.6% of the decision to other states.
Legislatures of small states are committing a form of legislative malpractice by joining the NPVIC. The NPVIC is the latest in a 250-year history of schemes where the populous states are trying to bully and dominate the small states in the country. Under the guise of the perceived unfairness of specific presidential election outcomes, the large states are trying to fool the small states into giving up the finely balanced power they were guaranteed when they joined the United States. In addition, as different states implement different rules for voting, all other states would suffer the corruption of the national popular vote by sanctuary states. Those states allow non-citizens to vote in some elections and/or make it likely that errors will result in ineligible people voting in presidential elections.
Constitutional Flaw #2: Popular Vote Coercion
In 1824 (the 10th presidential election in U.S. history), there were four candidates. More importantly, there were many ways that states selected their electoral votes. In the 1824 election, the states of Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont did not have any popular votes for president. At that time, these states had a total of 71 electoral votes out of a total of 261. These states used various approaches to apportion their electors in the manner they felt best. For instance, New York had electors vote for the following candidates: Andrew Jackson (1), John Quincy Adams (26), Henry Clay (4), and William Crawford (5).
States have significant flexibility in choosing their electors. A state could have strong antiwar conscientious objector feelings and decide that it is morally wrong to select the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. In this case, the Legislature could devise a random process to select electors, or select none at all, so as not to trample on the feelings of their citizens. Another state could believe strongly in astrology and think birth sign is the most important factor in determining a commander in chief. Its Legislature could apportion electors using a formula based on the birth signs of the candidates. Though the author hopes these seem extreme to the reader, it could be argued that they have a rational basis from the perspective of their state legislatures.
Many states have used methods other than the popular vote to select their presidential electors in our nation’s history. The NPVIC would force states to hold popular votes for president or lose power within our constitutional republic. This coercion would occur since unless states held a popular vote, and their votes were added into the national total, they would lose power relative to the states in the NPVIC. In the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court re-highlighted the right of state legislatures to select electors through various means in Bush v. Gore. These approaches included having the state legislatures take back the ability to choose electors from the people.
Constitutional Flaw #3: Removal of Critical Safety Mechanism
In the last 13 presidential elections, there have been two where a third-party candidate received more than 10% of the votes: 1968-Wallace (13.5%) and 1992-Perot (18.9%). There were an additional two presidential elections where a third-party candidate received more than 5% of the vote: 1980-Anderson (6.6%) and 1996-Perot (8.4%). In addition to the earlier described 1824 election, the 1860 election in the lead-up to the Civil War had four major candidates. In the 1860 Election, the percentages of the popular vote were as follows: Lincoln (39.8%), Douglas (29.5%), Breckinridge (18.1%), and Bell (12.6%). The electoral vote percentages that showed popularity by State were very different: Lincoln (180), Douglas (12), Breckinridge (72), and Bell (39). The electoral votes show that even though Douglas had almost 30% of the national popular vote, he was the least preferred candidate when states selected their electors.
As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically. Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People’s Party (8.3%). If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn’t figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler. Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.
The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson was a political outsider who was eyed with distrust in Washington. When the Election of 1824 went to the U.S. House of Representatives, the states were allowed to identify the best compromise candidate they could find from the top three electoral vote recipients. The U.S. House voted: John Quincy Adams (13), Andrew Jackson (7), and William Crawford (4). John Quincy Adams, the son of our country’s second president, was elected president by the House of Representatives in 1824. In spite of losing the 1824 election in the House of Representatives, Andrew Jackson came back to win the presidency outright in the Electoral College in 1828 and 1832, and he is honored on the $20 bill.
Conclusion
In the 13 presidential elections that the author can remember, he has felt emotions ranging from being thrilled, being happy, being worried, and being disgusted with the results. Since we live in a great country, where honest Americans can have different views, the author is sure that many people felt differently. Unfortunately, the fact that someone doesn’t like who wins specific elections is no excuse for trying to dramatically change the genius of our presidential election system. This paper shows how the NPVIC would not only be unconstitutional in three key ways, but would potentially be dangerous to our nation.
Introduction
As of now, fourteen states have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which attempts to eliminate the Electoral College as set forth in the United States Constitution. There have been many good articles written about the legality of interstate compacts to achieve the desired National Popular Vote goals. The author does not need to rehash all of those problems but believes that there are three additional ways that the NPVIC is both unconstitutional and dangerous.
Constitutional Flaw #1: Non-Republican Form of Government
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says in part that ”[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The United States is a constitutional republic, where people elect their senators and representatives at the national level. At the state level, this is copied by every state except for Nebraska, which has a unique unicameral Legislature. A Republican form of government, by its definition, means that people elect representatives to represent them in running the government. This is done so that the people are not encumbered with the daily operations and voting to run the state or federal government.
A fundamental problem with the NPVIC is that it is inherently not a republican form of government for a specific state to select that state’s Electors. Once a state Legislature decides to ask its citizens their preference through a popular vote, there must be a rational basis as to how the vote of the state’s citizens is used to select that state’s electors. It is not rational that the people’s decision could be overruled by the votes of citizens of unrelated states. The following comparison is between two states in the NPVIC who are at the extremes of the Popular Vote Range for the 2016 election.
Vermont has three electoral votes in our existing system and cast 315,067 votes for president in 2016. This constituted 0.23% of the total votes in the nation. Under the NPVIC, Vermont will give other states 99.77% of the power to select its state’s electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. Presently, there is a total pool of 538 electors, and 0.23% constitutes 1.2 electors. Vermont has irrationally thrown away its automatic control of three Electoral Votes for an effective control of 1.2 electoral votes.
At the other extreme is the state of California, which has 55 electoral votes in the present system. In the 2016 presidential election, there were 14,181,595 votes cast for president in California, which constituted 10.4% of the nation’s total votes. California will give other states 89.6% of the power to select its state’s electors for president instead of maintaining the 100% control it presently has. California has traded 55 electoral votes for an effective 56 electoral votes. At least California’s decision would result in a higher number of effective electoral votes for the State, but it would still hand 89.6% of the decision to other states.
Legislatures of small states are committing a form of legislative malpractice by joining the NPVIC. The NPVIC is the latest in a 250-year history of schemes where the populous states are trying to bully and dominate the small states in the country. Under the guise of the perceived unfairness of specific presidential election outcomes, the large states are trying to fool the small states into giving up the finely balanced power they were guaranteed when they joined the United States. In addition, as different states implement different rules for voting, all other states would suffer the corruption of the national popular vote by sanctuary states. Those states allow non-citizens to vote in some elections and/or make it likely that errors will result in ineligible people voting in presidential elections.
Constitutional Flaw #2: Popular Vote Coercion
In 1824 (the 10th presidential election in U.S. history), there were four candidates. More importantly, there were many ways that states selected their electoral votes. In the 1824 election, the states of Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont did not have any popular votes for president. At that time, these states had a total of 71 electoral votes out of a total of 261. These states used various approaches to apportion their electors in the manner they felt best. For instance, New York had electors vote for the following candidates: Andrew Jackson (1), John Quincy Adams (26), Henry Clay (4), and William Crawford (5).
States have significant flexibility in choosing their electors. A state could have strong antiwar conscientious objector feelings and decide that it is morally wrong to select the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. In this case, the Legislature could devise a random process to select electors, or select none at all, so as not to trample on the feelings of their citizens. Another state could believe strongly in astrology and think birth sign is the most important factor in determining a commander in chief. Its Legislature could apportion electors using a formula based on the birth signs of the candidates. Though the author hopes these seem extreme to the reader, it could be argued that they have a rational basis from the perspective of their state legislatures.
Many states have used methods other than the popular vote to select their presidential electors in our nation’s history. The NPVIC would force states to hold popular votes for president or lose power within our constitutional republic. This coercion would occur since unless states held a popular vote, and their votes were added into the national total, they would lose power relative to the states in the NPVIC. In the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court re-highlighted the right of state legislatures to select electors through various means in Bush v. Gore. These approaches included having the state legislatures take back the ability to choose electors from the people.
Constitutional Flaw #3: Removal of Critical Safety Mechanism
In the last 13 presidential elections, there have been two where a third-party candidate received more than 10% of the votes: 1968-Wallace (13.5%) and 1992-Perot (18.9%). There were an additional two presidential elections where a third-party candidate received more than 5% of the vote: 1980-Anderson (6.6%) and 1996-Perot (8.4%). In addition to the earlier described 1824 election, the 1860 election in the lead-up to the Civil War had four major candidates. In the 1860 Election, the percentages of the popular vote were as follows: Lincoln (39.8%), Douglas (29.5%), Breckinridge (18.1%), and Bell (12.6%). The electoral vote percentages that showed popularity by State were very different: Lincoln (180), Douglas (12), Breckinridge (72), and Bell (39). The electoral votes show that even though Douglas had almost 30% of the national popular vote, he was the least preferred candidate when states selected their electors.
As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically. Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People’s Party (8.3%). If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn’t figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler. Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.
The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson was a political outsider who was eyed with distrust in Washington. When the Election of 1824 went to the U.S. House of Representatives, the states were allowed to identify the best compromise candidate they could find from the top three electoral vote recipients. The U.S. House voted: John Quincy Adams (13), Andrew Jackson (7), and William Crawford (4). John Quincy Adams, the son of our country’s second president, was elected president by the House of Representatives in 1824. In spite of losing the 1824 election in the House of Representatives, Andrew Jackson came back to win the presidency outright in the Electoral College in 1828 and 1832, and he is honored on the $20 bill.
Conclusion
In the 13 presidential elections that the author can remember, he has felt emotions ranging from being thrilled, being happy, being worried, and being disgusted with the results. Since we live in a great country, where honest Americans can have different views, the author is sure that many people felt differently. Unfortunately, the fact that someone doesn’t like who wins specific elections is no excuse for trying to dramatically change the genius of our presidential election system. This paper shows how the NPVIC would not only be unconstitutional in three key ways, but would potentially be dangerous to our nation.
Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on Thursday pushed back against the notion that race relations have gotten worse during the Trump administration.
Rice sat down with 3rd Hour Today co-host Sheinelle Jones, who asked about race relations during Trump administration.
"There are people who will say it feels worse now when we are talking about race or it feels like a divisive environment," Jones said, prompting Rice to push back.
"It sure doesn’t feel worse than when I grew up in Jim Crow Alabama, so let’s drop this notion that we’re worse at race relations today than we were in the past. Really? That means we’ve made no progress. Really?" Rice said. "I think the hyperbole about how much worse it is isn’t doing us any good. This country is never going to be color blind."
Jones followed up by asking her about people who say the rhetoric starts with the president and he has to set an example from the top-down.
"Oh, come on, alright? I would be the first to say we need to watch our language about race. We need to watch that we don’t use dog whistles to people who—but when we start saying, ‘It’s worse today,’ No it’s not," Rice said.
Rice served as a national security adviser to former president George W. Bush and would later be nominated and confirmed to be secretary of state during the Bush administration.
The female high school athlete who was forced to sit on the sidelines at a major track tournament because two transgender runners landed the No. 1 and No. 2 spots isn’t just speaking out about the unfairness of her situation—she’s fighting back.
Hours after filing a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Selina Soule and her attorney, Christiana Holcomb of Alliance Defending Freedom, sat down with Kelsey Bolar on this week’s edition of “Problematic Women” to discuss the latest developments in her case.
In addition to that interview, Bolar and co-host Beverly Hallberg of District Media Group talk about Teen Vogue promoting prostitution to teenage girls, CNN labeling first lady Melania Trump a “Woman of Mystery,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., admitting Republicans were probably right about allegations against Bill Clinton, and women saying they prefer “Dad bods” over perfectly toned six-packs.
Listen or read a lightly edited transcript of our interview with Soule and Holcomb below.
Kelsey Bolar: Let’s start with you, Selina. For those who didn’t see our video and aren’t familiar with your story, can you recap what happened?
Selina Soule: In the indoor season at the state open championship, I came in eighth place in the 55-meter dash. The top seven qualify for the finals of the 55-meter dash, and the top six qualify for the regional New England meet.
I came in eighth place overall, but I would have been sixth place because the first two spots are taken by two transgender athletes.
Bolar: And just to clarify, you are a rising senior?
Soule: Yes.
Bolar: From Glastonbury, Connecticut?
Soule: Yes.
Bolar: OK. We’re going to get more into the backstory of how this happened.
Not only did you fight back by speaking up about your ordeal, which I’m going to get to more later, but there’s been a big development in your case.
This week, lawyers on your behalf actually filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. Christiana, can you tell us more about the step, and why you decided to take it on Selina’s behalf?
Christina Holcomb: Sure, absolutely.
Girls like Selina deserve a level playing field in athletics, right?
We know Title IX was designed to ensure that women were free of sex discrimination in education and, secondly, in athletics so that they could have the opportunity to compete, to move to the next level, to compete for scholarships, and potentially even launch their own athletic careers.
But what the Athletic Association in Connecticut has done by allowing biological males to compete in Selina’s female track tournaments is actually completely undermine and violate Title IX.
So Alliance Defending Freedom, on behalf of Salina and two other very courageous female athletes, has filed a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education.
What that basically means is we’ve asked the department to investigate and to, ultimately, restore fairness to women’s sports.
Bolar: Explain the laws, regulations, or just policies at the state or even athletic level in this case that are enabling biological boys to be competing as girls in high school sports.
Holcomb: I’m happy to jump in here. … Basically, the statewide Athletic Association in the state of Connecticut decided that biological males who identify as female may now—with no … transition or hormone, or any standards whatsoever, quite frankly—compete with the biological girls if they choose to do so.
We’re aware of at least two boys who are now not just competing against the girls, but absolutely dominating female track and field events in Connecticut.
Bolar: And Selina, this is a big step for you. As if speaking out in front of millions of people weren’t hard enough, now you’re actually filing a complaint before the U.S. Department of Education. Why did you decide to take this step?
Soule: I think that it’s important for fairness to be returned to not just track and field, but all female sports.
We’ve tried to talk to the Connecticut Athletic Association, and we’ve tried to talk to my school’s officials, and no one wants to hear us.
I think that this was the best way to get our voice out there and try to find a solution.
Bolar: It’s crazy to me that you say nobody wants to hear you because the reaction to the seven-minute documentary that we published on your story at The Daily Signal has been incredible.
It has 2.65 million views on YouTube and 3.8 million views on Facebook. Every day those numbers are still climbing.
That is our highest performing video we’ve ever published in the five years The Daily Signal has existed.
Were you surprised by this reaction, how it went viral, or did that scare you a bit?
Soule: I’m certainly surprised by it, even to this day, because I thought that it would be gaining a lot of attention for maybe a couple of weeks after it was just released. But even now, to this day, there’s still people watching it.
There’s still more comments being posted, and I’m having kids from other schools in other states at track meets coming up to me and thanking me for this.
I’m having hundreds and hundreds of people reaching out to me on social media thanking me for speaking out, so I’m a little overwhelmed by it to be quite honest.
Bolar: Wow. And has there been backlash mixed in with that?
Soule: I’ve gotten some backlash, but I don’t pay too much attention to it. The amount of hatred that I’ve gotten has been so minuscule compared to all the love and support.
So for me, I’m focusing on that and focusing on trying to bring back fairness to my sport.
Bolar: The comments are overwhelmingly positive when you read through them on Facebook or YouTube. I wanted to read you a couple and get your reaction:
This girl is risking her entire future by speaking out in this manner. I hope you all can appreciate that. Good job on this high school student displaying true bravery in a world that would crucify people for voicing opinions. I agree with her 100%, and I’m trans. Not all trans people are so radically left about gender and this stuff. This is so sad. I don’t think people should be afraid of speaking up. Facts are facts. Biological males will be able to compete at a higher level than biological females. That’s just biology.
Were you surprised by any of this feedback?
Soule: To some extent, yes. I know that not all transgender people have the same viewpoints as the rest and the far left, but some I know because I have some transgender athletes in my school, they are transgender males, and they also don’t agree that this is fair.
It’s coming down to common sense and realizing that men are physically superior to women. That’s just science. It’s not subjective. It’s objective.
Bolar: You weren’t the only athlete that I interviewed when I visited you in my home state of Connecticut. I interviewed a handful of other girls, but I talked to them off the record. I got their voices on audio, but they did not want to show their faces.
When we published their voices, we actually had to alter them to protect their identities. We didn’t use their names. We didn’t use any identifiable characteristics.
Understandably, they were concerned about being labeled bigots and facing backlash.
… Without using their names, have you heard from any of them, their reaction to how this video has gone viral?
Soule: I don’t think anyone was expecting it to become this popular and to really go viral.
We all knew that it would probably be spread along the track community, not only in Connecticut, but maybe across the U.S., but I don’t think any of us expected it to get this much attention and still continuing to.
Bolar: Christiana, what do you think it says that so many Americans who probably couldn’t care less about track are watching this, and sharing feedback, and sharing the video, and having such a strong reaction to it?
Holcomb: I think it means that the unfairness of what’s happening to Selina and these other girls in Connecticut is just really clear, right? There’s not a whole lot of room for debate.
Every boy who is standing on the podium or medaling in a women’s sporting event is one fewer girl that is medaling or standing on that podium. I think Americans of all shapes, sizes, affiliations, and so forth get the basic unfairness of that.
Bolar: I can’t help but think after reading through the comments that so many people are just relieved and refreshed that a young girl like yourself is willing to speak honestly about the situation, and share how it’s impacting you.
Because, unfortunately, there is so much intolerance surrounding this issue. So I think that they really do value your voice in this conversation.
This conversation is also about legislation that Congress is considering, the Equality Act. Christiana, can you break that down?
Holcomb: Sure.
So the Equality Act is a piece of legislation, as you mentioned, introduced into Congress, passed by the House, but is still pending in the Senate, thankfully.
What it would do is essentially impose a gender identity law across the entire country.
So the particular policy that Selina is fighting in the state of Connecticut that’s allowing biological males to compete in sports designed specifically for women, that would become the law of the land in all 50 states, at every level—city, state, and federal—which, frankly, I think is a really scary proposition.
I think it has massive, massive ramifications, particularly for young women like Selina.
Bolar: Selina, you’ve spoken out against this legislation. Why are you taking … the conversation there?
Soule: I’m taking it to that point because I know once this law is passed, or if it is passed, that it’ll completely destroy women’s sports.
Women will be on the sidelines watching their own events because no matter how hard we try, and how much effort we put in the gym, and the track, on the court, on the field, wherever, we will never be able to be competitive with a man. It’s not possible.
Bolar: I don’t know if you heard, but there’s a newly released music video by Taylor Swift reiterating her call for the Senate to pass the Equality Act.
Again, the Equality Act could enable biological boys who identify as girls to compete as girls in sports across the country.
Taylor Swift, of course, has not acknowledged that part of the conversation. She’s brushed over it.
But in her new song, Taylor is effectively telling those like you, Selina, who oppose the Equality Act, “You need to calm down.”
Have you heard this song? And how does that make you feel?
Soule: I have not heard this song. I’m upset by that because I only have an issue with it for athletics. For everyday life, it doesn’t matter.
I fully support anyone who wants to identify as whatever they are. To me, it doesn’t matter.
In everyday life, a man and a woman are going to do an office job the same, and learn in a classroom the exact same, but athletics have always had separate rules because of great physical differences between a man and a woman.
Bolar: … You just finished your junior year. This is an important time for you as someone who wants to compete in track in college. How is this affecting those dreams?
Soule: It can greatly impact my future because when the college coaches are looking at the results from these meets online, there’s no indication that these athletes are transgender. They’re either listed under the boys’ category or the girls’ category.
So unless they’ve somehow heard about this story or they typed these athletes’ names into Google, then they would have no idea that they are transgender.
With the current CAC or the current … NCAA policy, transgender athletes cannot compete until they’ve completed hormone therapy. There’s a certain regulation in policy for that. The coaches wouldn’t be able to recruit them until they have completed that.
So I haven’t directly had any effects from this yet, but it certainly could have an impact.
Bolar: For the record, we very intentionally did not use the names of the two transgender student athletes. They have been public. They have participated in their own interviews in the media.
But we felt it was incredibly important to let your story be told and let the focus be on you because the mainstream media and the liberal media does a pretty good job of sharing how they feel, but you really were one of the first voices to really be heard from the other perspective. Clearly, a lot of people identify with that.
Christiana, I want to know, regarding the complaint you filed, what are the next steps? How long is this process going to take? What can we expect?
Holcomb: All great questions.
So, the next step is the Department of Education should open an investigation that will happen very quietly behind the scenes.
It will be investigating … the athletic policy that’s in place, allowing transgender athletes to compete in female sports.
We’re just optimistic that ultimately they will come back and say, “Clear Title IX violation,” and really remedy the wrong.
What we want is for a level playing field for Selina and her fellow female athletes to be able to compete against fellow biological girls and really have the chance to be recruited and earn those college scholarships.
Bolar: Selina, as we wrap up this interview, I can’t help but ask you this question. I don’t know if this is something you have thought through much at your age, but it’s a question we love asking women who come in because there are a range of different answers, and none of them are wrong. Do you identify as a feminist?
Soule: I don’t really know how to answer to that.
I haven’t dove too deep into that, but I believe that women should be equal to men. There shouldn’t be a wage gap, and there should be paid maternity leave, and women should have an equal opportunity in athletics and in other areas.
But I don’t know if I would label myself as a feminist at this point in time. Maybe in the future, but I’m not sure.
Bolar: Would you go so far as to label yourself a problematic woman?
Soule: Yes.
Bolar: … You’ve been very problematic.
Well, Selina and Christiana, thank you so much for joining us in the studio today.
A 32-year-old disabled woman in King County, Washington, was the ultimate victim of both weak-on-crime policies of local officials and sanctuary city status. The woman, of White Center, Washington, whose name remains unpublished, was raped by Francisco Carranza-Ramirez, 35, a citizen of Mexico, last fall. He served only nine months in prison. Last Thursday, he was released from prison without local law enforcement notifying ICE, and he allegedly went straight to the victim’s home, dumped her out of her wheelchair, and assaulted her in front of her three-year-old son.
Carranza-Ramirez was arrested September 26 for raping the wheelchair-bound woman in her home. He pleaded guilty at an arraignment in February, but because he was only charged with third-degree rape, as part of the deal, King County Superior Court Judge Nicole Gaines-Phelps sentenced him to time served, allowing him to be released the same day he was sentenced, on June 13, after just nine months in prison. His lawyer convinced the judge to release him without any probation.
Here is the twist. Typically, lawyers for illegal aliens try to cover their immigration status so they are not deported. In this case, the lawyers openly used his immigration status to avoid probation supervision upon release. His lawyer suggested that because he was homeless in King County and planned to board the next flight to Mexico, there was no need for further involvement in the American justice system. Having it both ways, the judge granted him full release on condition he register as a sex offender and provide proof that he left the country by June 25. Thus, the entire leniency was predicated on him being a Mexican citizen, but at the same time, neither the judge, the prosecutor, nor any local law enforcement notified ICE that this man was released.
Sanctuary city officials often contend that they have no interest in performing immigration work, yet in order to release this man without any supervision, the judge actually engaged in her own “self-deport” deal without getting ICE involved.
The result? Carranza-Ramirez didn’t fly to Mexico. He violated the protection order by coming within 1,000 feet of the victim just two days later on June 15. The next day, King County sheriff’s detectives say, he came to the victim’s home, knocked her out of her wheelchair, and attempted to strangle her in front of her three-year-old son. Sheriff’s deputies found her Sunday night on the ground with cuts and bruises and her wheelchair overturned. She was treated in a local hospital for a seizure and concussion and then released to a hiding place.
This could easily have been avoided had he been transferred to ICE or had ICE at least been notified of his release. Bryan Wilcox, acting field office director for Seattle’s ICE office, confirmed with KOMO that Ramirez “has committed a crime that would make him eligible for removal from the United States.” Now he remains a fugitive, and there is an arrest warrant out charging him with assault, felony harassment, intimidating a witness, and felony violation of a sex assault protection order.
To begin with, even putting immigration status aside, this is yet another example of how, despite all the talk of “over-sentencing” in the justice system, there are far more examples of under-sentencing, even for the most violent criminals. Here is an account of what happened last year, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Carranza-Ramirez first talked to the woman on Sept. 24, 2018. He allegedly approached her, talked to her but then she said she had to pick up her 2-year-old son and go to dinner.
He met the two later at the restaurant where she felt uncomfortable throughout the dinner, probable cause documents said. He offered to give the two a ride home as they lived close and she accepted. When they got home, he walked into the apartment with her with no invitation.
She told police he started touching her, telling her inappropriate and uncomfortable things like “I want to feel you.” She said she was scared of him, too scared to do anything when he carried her out of her wheelchair and allegedly raped her in her bedroom, documents said. He left afterward and she said she called 911, but hung up, feeling too scared.
Two days later, he entered her apartment again after walking her and her son back from the mailbox. She said he pushed her wheelchair to the bedroom where he raped her. She told him to stop repeatedly, until she convinced him she had to go to the bathroom. She called 911, but halfway through the call heard him move and put the phone down. The operator reportedly heard the woman saying “stop” and “I’ll be quiet.”
When deputies arrived, the woman was able to get away from Carranza-Ramirez, and deputies arrested him in the bedroom.
It is unconscionable that this man was sentenced to time served without any supervised release, but it clearly happens all too often, especially in “sanctuary-minded” jurisdictions that believe in “criminal justice reform.”
Then there is the egregious horror that a criminal alien was able to terrorize this woman multiple times, yet was never turned over to ICE. Last year, the King County Council adopted a policy of refusing to notify ICE or hold criminal aliens to be detained.
Moreover, in May, Governor Jay Inslee signed a law barring localities from even inquiring about immigration status. This is the single most important piece of information upon arrest, much more that someone’s race, because it makes all the difference of whether that person can be released to victimize more people or be returned to their home countries. Again, the state officials are having it both ways. If they want to “see no evil, hear no evil” about immigration status, that is fine. ICE has the ability to monitor the arrest records and inform local law enforcement with incontrovertible evidence that the person in custody is here illegally. But then they want to release them without informing ICE, even after ICE already confirmed the status.
Thus, states like Washington are not just washing their hands of immigration enforcement, they are actively harboring federal criminals.
On Monday, ICE released a mini-list of some recent egregious cases of violent criminals being released in Oregon and Washington thanks to sanctuary policies. In April, an illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in Oregon for raping a dog that later had to be euthanized. He was released two months prior to the incident, against an ICE detainer request. Oregon is currently considering a bill to grant illegal aliens driver’s licenses.
To date, Congress has declined to pass any legislation fixing the sanctuary city problem. With millions of criminal aliens remaining in the country, many of them harbored by sanctuary cities, that is the ultimate humanitarian crisis for the American people, yet Congress only sees humanitarian concerns about those they have not sworn an oath to protect.
Speaking for so many nameless victims in this country who don’t have international lawyers or Kim Kardashian in their court, this victim told KIRO, “I feel like the police did their job but the rest of the criminal justice system thoroughly let me down.”
The battle over transgender individuals in high school athletics could be headed to the U.S. Department of Education, as three female track and field athletes in Connecticut have filed a complaint with the department’s Office of Civil Rights. In the complaint, they allege that Connecticut’s policy of allowing athletes to compete under the gender they…
The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday his forces shot down an American reconnaissance drone in international airspace to send a “clear, decisive, firm, and accurate message” to the United States and boasted his forces are “completely ready for war.”
“Shooting down the American spy drone had a clear, decisive, firm and accurate message. The message is that the guardians of the borders of Islamic Iran will decisively respond to the violation of any stranger to this land,” said Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the IRGC, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
“The only solution for the enemies is to respect the territorial integrity and national interests of Iran. Borders are our redline and any enemy violating these borders will not go back,” he said.
The IRGC claimed the drone penetrated Iranian airspace before it was fired upon, but the U.S. military said on Thursday the attack was unprovoked and occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran periodically threatens to attack shipping in the strait or blockade it entirely.
“We do not intend to engage in war with any country, but we are completely ready for the war. Today’s incident is a clear sign of this accurate message,” Salami said.
The IRGC released a statement on Thursday morning that claimed the drone was “breaking all aerospace rules and hiding its identification, which is against all aviation rules.”
“While returning to the western Hormuz Strait’s region the drone violated Iran’s airspace and engaged in information-gathering and spying. At 4.05 a.m. local time while the violating airplane was over Iranian territory it was shot down by IRGC,” the statement said, giving the local time for the attack.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry continued claiming the drone violated Iranian airspace on Thursday.
“We give a decisive warning against the illegal and aggressive entry of any foreign intruding object and aircraft into the country’s sky, and against any violation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s territories,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi.
“We strongly condemn this kind of aggressive and provocative action. We warn against any violation of Iran’s airspace by foreign flying objects and declare that violators are responsible for the consequences of their actions,” Mousavi said.
“You bet I’m worried about China—if we keep following Trump’s path,” Biden said in a
Iowa speech. “While Trump is tweeting, China is making massive investments in technologies of the future.”
“While Trump is attacking our friends, China is pressing its advantage all over the world,” he added.
Breitbart News Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer laid out the circumstances of Hunter Biden’s questionable foreign business dealings in great detail in his 2018 book, Secret Empires.
Schweizer reports that in 2013, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s firm signed a billion-dollar deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China ten days after Joe and Hunter Biden flew to China aboard Air Force Two. The newly formed investment fund was named Bohai Harvest RST (BHR).
Schweizer went into further detail on Breitbart News Tonight last year:
“In December of 2013, Vice President Joe Biden flies to Asia for a trip, and the centerpiece for that trip is a visit to Beijing, China,” said Schweizer. “To put this into context, in 2013, the Chinese have just exerted air rights over the South Pacific, the South China Sea. They basically have said, ‘If you want to fly in this area, you have to get Chinese approval. We are claiming sovereignty over this territory.’ Highly controversial in Japan, in the Philippines, and in other countries. Joe Biden is supposed to be going there to confront the Chinese. Well, he gets widely criticized on that trip for going soft on China. So basically, no challenging them, and Japan and other countries are quite upset about this.”
Elaborating, Schweizer said, “Well, I think the reason he goes soft on China is because with him on that trip, flying on Air Force Two, is his son Hunter Biden, and ten days after they return from China, Hunter Biden — who has this small firm, he has no background in private equity, he has no background in Chinese finance — gets a whopping $1.5 billion deal from the Chinese government. This is the Chinese government giving Joe Biden and a [John] Kerry confidante the management over this money, and they made huge fees off of this money, and it’s an example of this kind of corruption. That’s the first of three major deals that the Chinese government does with people who are either the children — that is the sons — or close aides to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry.”
ABC News specifically credited Schweizer for his work on the topic.
Donald Trump Jr. has been a fierce critic of Biden’s shady foreign business dealings and brought them up during a speech at his father’s reelection rally in Orlando Tuesday night.
“Two weeks ago, Joe Biden said, ‘Oh. China. They’re not really a threat.’ Now, I said, ‘Man, that actually rivals and may surpass Obama’s stupidest comment in the history of politics and economics,’” Trump said.
“What do you think would be the media’s reaction if Donald Trump Jr. took $1.50 from the Chinese? Not $1.5 billion like Joe Biden’s son. Just $1.50,” he said.
“They would lose their goddamn minds,” he declared, adding that Biden “doesn’t know what the hell he stands for anymore”:
Don Jr. Hits Floppy Joe: ‘He Doesn’t Know What the Hell He Stands for’ https://t.co/AEqipgsUZn
