Month: February 2019

On Monday, perhaps sensing the backlash unleashed at Grand Canyon University, a Christian university, for denying Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro the chance to speak on their campus, Gonzaga University, a Jesuit school, rescinded their previous decision to bar Shapiro from speaking on campus, announcing that he would indeed be permitted to speak.

As KXLY reports, Gonzaga President Thayne McCulloh responded to a University Event Policy appeal launched by the Gonzaga University College Republicans (GUCR), who had proposed bringing Shapiro to speak on the campus in spring 2019. That proposal was rejected by the Vice President of Student Development, who had consulted with colleagues including those in Campus Security and Public Safety. They decided that safety concerns regarding Shapiro’s speech overrode Shapiro’s right to speak, assuming his presence would trigger a hostile environment for some members of the university’s community.

In December, GUCR appealed the decision, which was reviewed in early January.

McCulloh stated:

I appreciate that the students worked through the University’s appeals process as set forth in the Events Policy to address issues regarding safety and campus security, as well as engaged in discussion about the focus of the event. As a comprehensive, faith-based and mission-centered university, we are committed to facilitating exposure to a broad range of intellectual ideas and debate, even as we simultaneously strive to uphold the values reflected in our mission statement. This process is reflective of our efforts to do both

Some conditions have been set for Shapiro’s appearance; it will be held at the McCarthey Athletic Center (MAC), as GUCR nixed the smaller and less expensive Cataldo Hall location because of attendance capacity limitations.

The university also made sure to state, “As indicated in the Events Policy, the University’s decision to invite a given speaker in no way implies approval or endorsement of the views expressed by the speaker or any aspect of the event. The University nonetheless strives to encourage even difficult or controversial topics in the context of civil discourse. The authorization granted to the Gonzaga University College Republicans, to invite Mr. Shapiro to campus, is made with the understanding that his remarks while at Gonzaga will be respectful of the University, its members, and of the values reflected in our Mission Statement.”

On Friday, defending its decision to ban Shapiro, Grand Canyon University wrote:

We believe in many of the things that Ben Shapiro speaks about and stands for, including his support for ideals that grow out of traditional Judeo-Christian values and his belief in a free market economy. Our decision to cancel Shapiro’s speaking engagement is not a reflection of his ideologies or the values he represents, but rather a desire to focus on opportunities that bring people together …

As a university, we encourage thoughtful discussions and rational dialogue in our classrooms about the issues affecting our society, and we encourage students to put greater emphasis on actions that produce positive change in our society. By working together, we have shown that real partnerships can create real programs that produce real results in our community. We hope it is a model that is emulated by others and builds strong communities where people can live and prosper in harmony, no matter their differences.

Based on the response we have received from some within the Grand Canyon community regarding the decision involving such high-profile speakers as Ben Shapiro, we have obviously disappointed and offended some of you. We know that if we had made a different decision, we would have disappointed and offended others within the same community. It was not our intent to disappoint or offend anyone. It was, rather, to use our position as a Christian university to bring unity to a community that sits amidst a country that is extremely divided and can’t seem to find a path forward toward unity.

An increasingly common talking point to emerge among Democrats opposed to President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is to dismiss such a structure as terribly outdated — “medieval,” even — and ineffective at preventing illicit cross-border traffic.

One Democrat who has embraced that particular anti-wall talking point is 2020 candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris, who emphasized the term in discussing Trump’s proposal during her recent town hall-style event on CNN.

Asked about a potential trade of permanent protections for enrollees in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — better known as DACA — in exchange for border wall construction funding, Harris exclaimed of DACA recipients and the wall, “This administration has decided to vilify them and to trade on them for the sake of this president’s medieval vanity project called a wall.”

Harris is certainly not alone in characterizing the proposed border wall as “medieval” — something from times past that has no place in the here and now –but there is something else rather “medieval” that Harris and her leftist comrades don’t want to talk about: the re-emergence of terrible communicable diseases that had been nearly wiped out in the modern age.

Case in point is a major outbreak of typhus in the Los Angeles area, a horrific and potentially fatal disease that was widespread from ancient times to the Middle Ages — the “medieval” period, if you will — up until the age of the pioneers in American history, according to The Daily Wire.

TRENDING: Watch: Jeep’s Stunning, Patriotic Super Bowl Ad Already Stole the Show

Beginning back around October, there have been at least 57 reported cases of typhus in the downtown Los Angeles area, up from only six in the summer of 2018. In all, L.A. public health officials reported at least 120 cases of typhus throughout 2018, and there is no sign of the disease’s spread slowing down anytime soon.

The bacterium which cause the disease are carried by fleas and found in feces, and while most of those who initially contracted the out-dated and nearly wiped out disease prevalent from the “medieval” era were those classified as “experiencing homelessness,” the disease has begun to spread to some non-homeless people who live or work near areas frequented by the large and growing homeless population in the L.A. area, including local government workers.

The local NBC affiliate reported that the infectious disease appeared to have spread from homeless encampments to City Hall, where several workers had contracted the disease and experienced the high fevers and horrific headaches that accompany it.

One of those workers is Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood, who told KNBC, “It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck.” She added, “Who gets typhus? It’s a medieval disease that’s caused by trash.”

Indeed, and trash has been piling up around the city of Los Angeles, especially in and around the many homeless encampments that have popped up in recent years, including one that is right next to City Hall. As noted, the disease is carried by fleas, who in turn are carried by the rats that scurry back and forth between the trashy homeless camps and City Hall, where the workers then contract the disease from the infectious fleas.

The city government, led by Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti, began to try and clean up the voluminous amounts of trash on L.A. streets in the fall of 2018, but that appears to be a losing or stalemated battle, as new piles of trash appear just as quickly as they can be picked up.

Aside from the increased pick-up of trash around the city, some major local government offices have been fumigated — such as the L.A. Police Department’s Central Division office and main headquarters — but for some reason, the City Hall buildings have yet to be fumigated as well.

One of the worst places for typhus in L.A. that has become a focal point of concern is the infamous area known as Skid Row, which has long been frequented by the homeless. The epidemic hit that area so bad that it has now been dubbed the “typhus zone” by city officials.

Skid Row is most certainly not the only large homeless encampment in L.A., though, as the Los Angeles Times recently reported that the population of homeless individuals in and around L.A. has exploded by as much as 75 percent over just the past five years.

RELATED: Kamala Harris Shouldn’t Be President, But Not Because She Isn’t ‘Eligible’

Officials estimate upwards of 60,000 homeless people in and around L.A. on any given day, who spend their time hanging out in a multitude of makeshift encampments, including one right by City Hall. Public health officials noted in October that there were at least 222 known homeless encampments in the area, including at least 50 such encampments that were “home” to 30 or more people at a time.

Obviously, the inhabitants of such camps aren’t exactly living a clean and healthy lifestyle, and the trash, rotting food and human feces that accumulate in those camps provide sustenance for the flea-covered rats that proceed to spread the infectious disease to the homeless and non-homeless alike.

If Kamala Harris is so concerned about preventing the return of “medieval” wall systems to defend the border, perhaps she ought to take a closer look at the equally “medieval” infectious diseases like typhus that are spreading rapidly among the growing homeless population in her own state, lest she be accused of hypocrisy and partisanship more than she already has been.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

A baker in Washington state recently came under fire from leftists and the perpetually offended for a border wall-related Valentine’s Day cookie he had baked as a joke and placed on display in his small bakery, but now he is pushing back against those critics with a message to “lighten up.”

KING-TV reported last week on the controversy that arose over a heart-shaped frosted cookie which read “Build that Wall” in the display case of the Edmonds Bakery, which is owned and operated by a baker named Ken Bellingham.

The cookie had been spotted by a would-be customer named Ana Carrera — daughter of Mexican immigrants — who took offense to the border wall message on the cookie and posted a photo of it to Facebook, where it went viral and prompted angry messages and threats of a boycott against Bellingham’s business.

“People were just going off,” Bellingham explained to KING at the time. “They don’t know anything about me and supposedly I’m some horrible person.”

In response to the controversy, Bellingham initially issued an apology on Facebook for his “mistake,” and vowed to never make such cookies again.

TRENDING: Watch: Jeep’s Stunning, Patriotic Super Bowl Ad Already Stole the Show

He told KING that the single cookie had merely been meant as a joke and not a political message, and even said he didn’t necessarily endorse the idea of a border wall, as “I don’t think building a wall will solve our problems.”

“I guess the joke is on me,” he said of the “Build that Wall” cookie. He added, “If I wanted to make a political statement, I’d put it on a sign. And march up and down the street. But I put it on a cookie for heaven’s sake.”

Fast-forward one week and everything had changed for Bellingham, who has now issued an “unapology” for the controversial cookie and stated that he intends to bake more of them, as he had received an outpouring of support from across the country after the initial controversy had gone viral.

In an interview with KOMO News, Bellingham said, “The phone messages saved has like 40-or-50 messages that I can’t even respond to from people all over the country wanting me to ship them cookies.”

Though he had initially apologized for offending anyone with the politicized cookie, following the support he received he is now “unapologizing” for the tasty border security-related treat and has resumed baking them, this time by the dozens for sale to anyone who wants them in the local area.

In another Facebook post explaining his reversal just days after the first post, Bellingham alluded to his First Amendment-protected right to free speech, which would include writing whatever he wants on the cookies he bakes in his own bakery.

Bellingham wrote, “Am I supposed to be quiet because I can’t write what I want, or I can only write what they want or makes them happy? No. That’s not how it is. They can write whatever they want on their own cookie and I can do that on mine.”

To be sure, Bellingham still insists that while he supports increased border security measures, he doesn’t go as far as supporting a wall along the entirety of the border, and reiterated that the cookies bearing the border wall message were intended as a joke, not a political message.

RELATED: Washington Democrat Pushes for Citizens To Become Trees After They Die… Seriously?

He told KOMO that his decision to resume baking the cookies was a business decision — obviously, as they proved more popular than unpopular — and had nothing to do with politics.

As for those who insisted on being offended by the message inscribed with frosting on a cookie, Bellingham said, “People should lighten up,” as he proceeded to write “Lighten up” on a heart-shaped cookie he was finishing.

This baker felt the wrath of the left over a simple cookie that read “Build that Wall,” and nearly gave in to the online mob that descended upon him.

That is, until he also received an outpouring of support from others all across the country, which gave him the strength to metaphorically tell the perpetually offended what they could do with the humorous cookies they found so offensive, and that is just awesome.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The Democratic Party has moved from the Clintonian abortion formulation of “safe, legal, and rare” to the unapologetic Lena Dunham-esque braggadocio of “shout your abortion” quicker than an Usain Bolt 100-meter dash. And while the silver lining of what National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru aptly dubs “the infanticide craze” currently sweeping its way across sundry Democratic-controlled state legislatures and gubernatorial mansions is that abortion backers seem genuinely worried about a possible blow the current U.S. Supreme Court may soon strike at Roe and it grisly progeny, the barbaric fact remains that these blue states are now in something akin to a race to the bottom to see who can most closely approximate the abortion regime of such “progressive” bastions as China or North Korea.

One supposes that these open supporters of infanticide are at least intellectually honest about their convictions. Alas, that does not make those convictions — however honestly and consistently held — any less barbaric. As Vice President Mike Pence nicely put it, “This shameless embrace of a culture of death is startling to every American who cherishes life.”

Yet perhaps there is an additional silver lining for pro-lifers. The spectacle of Democratic governors from New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island falling all over themselves to legalize de facto on-demand abortion up until birth provides pro-lifers with a unique opportunity to proselytize to the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not full-on crazy prenatal baby killers.

Pro-lifers should do their best to seize this moment — to both preach our substantive message and to tactically appeal to those who hold centrist views on the abortion issue. In doing so, here are four key areas we ought to emphasize.

1. The Democratic Party’s Shift On Abortion Has Been Enormous. As aformentioned, the Democratic Party’s shift on the issue of unborn life has been nothing short of remarkable. For decades, the Democratic Party was the comfortable political home for many pro-life Catholics. Even after the 1973 constitutional atrocity of Roe, the Democratic Party continued to serve as a political home for many pro-life Christians (and especially Catholics) who valued the unborn but leaned to the Left on issues such as immigration or the welfare state. As late as the 1990s, Democrat Bob Casey Sr. was a staunchly pro-life governor of a major state. Whereas Gov. Mario Cuomo was instrumental in concoting the “personally pro-life but won’t force that belief unto others” faux-intellectual farce, his son Gov. Andrew Cuomo makes no such pretensions — such is the inter-generational shift in the Party’s militant thinking vis-à-vis the unborn.

The halcyon days of Democratic acceptance of pro-lifers is unfortunately over. As Cardinal Timothy Dolan lamented in The Wall Street Journal last March, foreshadowing the grisly abortion bill that Gov. Andrew Cuomo would sign into law less than a year later:

An esteemed pro-life Democrat in Illinois, Rep. Dan Lipinski, effectively [has been] blacklisted by his own party. Last year, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez insisted that pro-life candidates have no place in the modern Democratic Party. …

More sobering, what is already the most radical abortion license in the country may soon be even more morbidly expanded. For instance, under the proposed Reproductive Health Act, doctors would not be required to care for a baby who survives an abortion. The newborn simply would be allowed to die without any legal implications. And abortions would be legal up to the moment of birth. …

[I]t saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish, when the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.

2. Science Is On Our Side. This point speaks for itself, but it is too crucial to dismiss as a merely incidental strand of pro-life argumentation. As I recently wrote:

In truth, the pro-life argument is deceptively simple. There are only two core components.

The first component is science. It is a rudimentary embryological/biological factthat, upon sperm fertilization of an egg, a new DNA code is formed. Removing morality or bioethics from the equation, there is no more obvious place in the gestational continuum to demarcate the scientific origin of a new, discrete human life. …

At a sperm’s fertilization of an egg, the biological process commences through which a new member of the human species is formed. That biological process, if left unimpeded by external actors, will result in the eventual live birth of an organism that every lay person would intuitively recognize as a full-fledged new human being.

Science now informs us when unborn children first develop various body parts, when brain activity commences, when they feel pain, and so forth. This really should be compelling — electrical brain activity usually begins as early as the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy. It is extraordinarily difficult to interpret, on a non-scientific and purely visceral, intuitive level, a biological organism emitting electrical brain waves as merely being an amorphous “clump of cells.” Similarly, ultrasound imagery is also hugely beneficial to the pro-life community, and we ought to invoke and use it frequently.

3. Defunding Planned Parenthood Does Not Mean All Women’s Health Clinics Should Be Defunded. As a general observation of what I have experienced in various modes and settings of pro-life advocacy, there is only so far that constantly calling one’s pro-abortion foe a baby killer will go. To the extent pro-lifers want to engage in the dialectic and persuade hearts and minds — as opposed to merely throwing bombs — it is deeply important to sometimes soften our tone and emphasize lighter, more delicate points. Pro-lifers (properly) speak routinely about defunding Planned Parenthood — an organization founded by an unapologetic eugenicist (Margaret Sanger) and which today performs more abortions than any institution in America. And yet besides the death cult with which it is most famously intertwined, it is also undeniable that Planned Parenthood also performs some (non-death-inducing) women’s health services that pro-lifers and conservatives ought to support: STD testing, vaccine services, and cancer screenings all come to mind.

Pro-lifers ought to discuss more frequently the notion that any defunding of Planned Parenthood could easily be replaced by a funding of women’s health clinics that do not perform abortions. Consider this 2015 study by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which identified across the country a startling ratio of 20 comprehensive women’s healthcare clinics for every one Planned Parenthood clinic in the country: 13,540 to 665, in total. The Daily Signal wrote at the time:

Alliance Defending Freedom and Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, identified the different Planned Parenthood locations and community health care clinics across America.

The two groups argue there are plenty of health centers — that also can receive federal funding — to absorb Planned Parenthood’s patients should the organization be defunded by Congress.

“What these graphics put into pictures is what the data has been telling us for a long time,” Casey Mattox, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom who focuses on pro-life issues, told The Daily Signal. “Planned Parenthood is really a small part of the national health care picture in America.”

To be pro-life is not in any way to be anti-woman — but it is incumbent upon pro-lifers to forcefully drive that point home.

4. Substantive Investment In And Rhetorical Emphasis Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers Can Go A Long Way. Along the same lines of the need for pro-lifers to sometimes take a softer tone and exude compassion for women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies, I have long been of the belief that pro-lifers need to place more intellectual, social, and, indeed, financial capital toward supporting and maintaining distinctly pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Put simply, it ought to be much easier for centrists and moderates on the abortion issue to come around to our side when they know that pro-lifers have a firm interest in helping the very best they can the invariably depressed, scared, lonely single women who suffer through unwanted pregnancies. Without a firm commitment to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (i.e., those centers that do not offer abortions), the pro-life argument risks ringing hollow for many. It is easy to preach the natural rights theory and rudimentary embryology that both support the right to life for unborn children. It is far more difficult, though just as important, to preach the need for pro-lifers to fully and unequivocally endorse and support our caring for single women who endure unplanned pregnancies. Churches, synagogues, and the various other mediating institutions of civil society need to do a better job than they already are of funding and supporting pro-life crisis pregnancy centers across the country. Pro-lifers are not just pro-unborn baby, but also pro-woman — but we need our actions to consistently match our beliefs in demonstrating that.

President Donald Trump reasserted his promise on Friday to withdraw the United States from conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria.

“I inherited a total mess in Syria and Afghanistan, the ‘Endless Wars’ of unlimited spending and death,” Trump wrote on Twitter, recalling his campaign promise.

The president reminded Americans that they were spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, but he noted that peace talks were on the table.

The House Democrats’ proposed 2019 homeland security budget reopens the nation’s southern border to migrant inflows, while it also dangles the promise of cheap labor in front of GOP legislators and donors.

The draft budget adds $1.75 billion in extra border spending to President Donald Trump’s $58.7 billion budget request for the Department of Homeland security in 2019, according to a copy published by the Washington Post.

But Democrats’ draft bill does not include any funding for the wall, and it uses the extra money to help migrants bypass border protections and then win jobs in the U.S. labor market.