I’m not alone among conservatives in my fondness for pets. One analysis finds that states with the highest pet ownership overwhelmingly vote Republican. It’s one reason why a certain Republican governor has found herself in hot water among typical allies over an incident involving a former pet.

But unfortunately, left-wing animal rights activists are using the soft spot for golden retrievers and German shepherds as a Trojan horse. The Republican movement needs to be on high alert.

Fringe animal rights groups are shifty. They deceptively use images of cats and dogs to manipulate Republican legislators to act against the interests of their own constituents. Notably, the political gymnastics include moves to compromise the backbone of America: family farms.

Chief among the organizations is the Humane Society of the United States. The group, which puzzlingly has no affiliation with local animal shelters, is run by a former lawyer for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Polar opposite of the views of traditional red-blooded Americans, PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. attack hunting, farming, and ranching and promote veganism.

Nonetheless, some conservative lawmakers are being fooled and find themselves sliding leftward in their direction.

A prime example is activity around the recent implementation of a California ballot measure that bans the sale of most pork products in the state. No longer is there a free market for farmers across the country to sell into California. Now, if farmers in Iowa or North Carolina don’t spend millions of dollars to become “California-compliant,” access to a huge consumer market is cut off.

As I write this, Congress is fortunately trying to correct California’s hijacking of the food system, which has caused a 41% price spike for pork in the state. As expected, the legislative effort to protect domestic agriculture and consumers is facing phony “grassroots” resistance that is simply noise bought and paid for by animal activists. Liberal Democrats are naturally among the opposition, but so are a small number of misled Republicans who consider themselves to be members of the MAGA movement.

The lefty political leanings of animal rights groups are no surprise. The lobbying arm of the Humane Society of the U.S., for example, endorsed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for president. And federal records show that animal rights groups and their lobbying entities have spent over $1 million in recent years to elect Democrats.

Other players, such as animal rights lobbyist Marty Irby, muddy the waters further. They parade around Capitol Hill as so-called conservatives with a heart for animals while also taking pictures with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and praising liberal vegan Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But it’s disappointing to see a handful of Republican lawmakers being hoodwinked into joining their ranks — undermining the farmers, ranchers, hunters, and anglers that make up a core conservative voting bloc.

Elected Republican officials need to be vigilant. We don’t need any more disaffected voters in November. If animal rights activists can swindle their way in, the conservative movement will go to the dogs.

Sean Spicer was the White House press secretary for the Trump administration.

Protester privilege is the latest left-wing fad dominating American culture. Apparently, people can commit criminal acts, break laws, invade and occupy buildings, and any other number of illegal activities just so long as all of it is done under the guise of “Free Palestine.”

Cowardly university presidents and officials have genuflected to the whims and demands of a bunch of people who, for the most part, have never set foot out in the real world and know what real responsibilities are. This is indicative of the toxic rot at the core of left-wing political ideology and activism. The adults who are supposed to be in charge and educate future generations have opted to coddle and appease them. One such example is the gutless president of Portland State University, Ann Cudd. 

After protesters invaded, ransacked, and took the university’s library hostage and occupied it, Cudd (rightfully) called the police for help. Police eventually cleared the building of its illegal occupants, and the university was able to reclaim it. Yet after Cudd did the correct and responsible thing, she apologized to the criminals and delinquents for getting law enforcement officers involved. 

“I know our cooperation with the Portland Police Bureau was upsetting to some in our community, and I want to address that directly,” Cudd wrote in a message posted to the university website. “We would not have taken that step if we thought this matter could be resolved in any other way.”

“I negotiated with students, with the assistance of three faculty members, to provide an opportunity for students to leave the library with minimal adverse consequences,” Cudd added. “While we learned from the faculty members that 50-100 students then left the library, the ones who remained chose not to accept my offer and made it clear that they would not leave voluntarily.”

Apologizing for calling the police on people who illegally stormed a building and took it over? This is blasphemous.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Negotiating with terrorists is usually understood to be a no-no. That is unless the agitator is a left-wing activist. Then, college officials do their best Neville Chamberlain impression and seek to appease the radicals. No other criminals or rule breakers receive such breaks or accommodations. These cowardly leaders are enabling and emboldening these unhinged fanatics running rampant on college campuses all because they are afraid to be responsible adults and hold people accountable for their criminal behavior.

Cudd should be ashamed of herself, and so should any other university president who mimics her cowardly impotence. They are failing this country, and their willingness to bend the knee and acquiesce to the demands of these despotic college student totalitarians is a true dereliction of their duty as university presidents. 

When his case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, reached the Supreme Court, the corporate media labeled him an “angry white man” for his demand that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee be applied to him and to the United States government. Remarkably, at the dawn of the 21st century, it did not; in fact, the solicitor general argued to the court that Congress, as a national legislature, could discriminate between and among people on the basis of race, including Pech. The court disagreed. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor vacated earlier court precedents to the contrary and held that, regardless of the race or the person burdened or benefited by congressional racial discrimination, everyone had a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.

So breathtaking was the ruling that it led the news on all three networks, made the front page (above the fold) of the nation’s newspapers, and drew predictions from political pundits that “affirmative action is dead.” In fact, in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that, if it remained in force, Adarand doomed all the court’s past racial carveouts. Affirmative action did not die, in part because of an intervening misstep by the court (most recently corrected by the court of Chief Justice John Roberts when he wrote that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”), but also because a case challenging congressional racial preferences has not yet reached the nine justices. Nonetheless, Adarand remains controlling in the nation’s courts — for example, it was used to strike down racial preferences set forth in President Joe Biden’s partisan American Rescue Plan Act.   

Although the founders’ equal protection vision is embraced fully by the Supreme Court, something appears amiss in our culture in which one group and one group alone is subjected to the most un-American, uncivilized, and even unconstitutional of abuse. In a nation where, as Tucker Carlson points out, “being racist is the ultimate sin,” how could that have happened?

Fortunately, Jeremy Carl, in his crucially important new book, The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart, has answers and solutions. Carl, a graduate of Yale University and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a top official in President Donald Trump’s Interior Department, and a former research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is now a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute out of his home in Montana, where he lives with his wife and children.

For those who dream, as did the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that their children will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, Carl, whose dream for his children is similar (that they “be treated equally as they pursue their dreams”), provides great information, insight, and inspiration. Perhaps his greatest contribution is speaking the truth: “White Americans and ‘whiteness’” have been stigmatized “in the service of justifying blatant racial discrimination.” In doing so, Carl provides an exhaustive, dense, but highly readable education on how our culture, media, and, in some cases, our laws got to the sorry state in which we find ourselves. Carl backs it all up with 76 pages of nearly 1,000 endnotes with authentication, source materials, and more information.

Carl painstakingly documents that anti-whiteness has manifested itself throughout America’s culture. How could it not — after all, “white supremacy” is called the greatest threat to the country by the “White House, Hollywood, and many major corporations.” That is not the worst of it, however, and if you think you have been paying attention, think again. Carl provides chapter and verse on how anti-white racism has played out, including the distortion of civil rights laws; the collapse of the criminal justice system, with the concomitant excoriation of police and one-sided application of “hate crimes;” the destruction of white neighborhoods; the trashing of public education (CRT, nondiscipline, and affirmative action); the erasure of history; the elimination of barriers to illegal immigration, the racialization of movies, Madison Avenue, Broadway, television, music, and literature; the DEI-ing of big business and Big Tech; and finally the perversion of medicine, religion, and America’s military.

Led by the Democratic Party and its all-too-willing, enthusiastic, and contrary to decades of policy positions (e.g., “school busing”) puppet President Joe Biden and the usual assortment of race hustlers, race-baiters, and demagogues, it has achieved bandwagon status as white liberals (whether out of guilt, ignorance, or ideology), colleges and universities (most of which were already leading the parade), the corporate media, and corporate America joined in decrying the alleged racism, crimes, and evils of white America. Meanwhile, this band of banal bandits drew unwitting support from a host of useful idiots, as Carl points out. After all, Vice President Dan Quayle coined the insanity, “Diversity is our strength,” President George W. Bush teamed with “racial justice” advocates to adopt the lax lending standards that led to the 2008 market crash, and the Army’s chief of staff whined that the worst tragedy of the Fort Hood jihad massacre (13 dead, 42 wounded) would be if “diversity” became a casualty of the killings.

It matters not that, for decades, the supply of white racism has exceeded exponentially progressives’ demand for it. Nor does it matter, as Carl points out, that “white people are increasingly struggling with social dysfunctions” that tragically yield “deaths of despair.” Carl argues, with authority, that they suffer from “downward mobility, declining fertility[,] rising drug addiction[,] depression, and narrowing opportunities.” Nonetheless, for example, lily-white environmental groups, when given a chance “to promote a clean environment,” will instead “choose to slander whites every time” to establish their anti-white bona fides.

Where is all this headed? Carl maintains that the “common ideological purpose” is “to create an intellectual and cultural environment to justify the expropriation of land, property, and other wealth from whites while instituting a permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.”  Not all or even most participants in the movements Carl outlined share these goals, perhaps believing instead that their attacks on “white privilege” are merely a fight for “justice” — however, the movements’ leaders know the end game.

Carl, perhaps more than most, is sensitive to such topics after living in India, where the saying was “you don’t cast your vote, you vote your caste.” Nonetheless, Carl has hope “for all Americans” and not just because a 2023 poll showed 72% of people agree it is “okay to be white.” (Fifty-three percent of black people agreed, and only 26% disagreed.) Carl has hope because “Americans of all racial backgrounds understand the danger of our current situation” and have joined in the fight for “equal rights for Americans regardless of the color of their skin.” Many of them have led that fight for decades, suffering abuse for doing so. Finally, Carl has hope because “hysterical [white racism] charges are no longer deterring people from speaking out.”

Carl’s closing strategies and solutions merit thoughtful consideration and implementation by leaders and ordinary people, including reforming the census, net-zero immigration that he faults today as “unfettered” and worsened by “a declining focus on cultural assimilation,” embracing lawfare against the anti-white establishment, eliminating affirmative action, reforming civil rights laws, ending DEI bureaucracies, and strengthening law enforcement. Meanwhile, Carl proposes courting Asian Americans as allies, holding black political leaders and white progressives accountable for their anti-white policies and rhetoric, speaking out against anti-white discrimination, engaging in civil disobedience, and boycotting anti-white racism.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Carl’s final chapter, “Finding Our Way Home,” foresees a home that is “one of freedom and equality under the law,” as envisioned by the founders, particularly James Madison. Carl notes that Madison thought that “equal laws protecting equal rights” ensure not only “loyalty, and love of country,” but also “mutual respect and good will among citizens.”

As America continues its journey, Carl’s vision of such a homecoming is encouraging.

William Perry Pendley, a Wyoming attorney and a Colorado-based, public-interest lawyer for three decades with victories at the Supreme Court of the U.S., served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration and led the Bureau of Land Management for former President Donald Trump.

There is something in this sequence that parallels President Joe Biden’s half-century in politics, although in his case ultimate and complete triumph applies only to securing the presidency, not to his policies, leadership qualities, or the substantive and moral consequences of his occupancy of that office.

Biden ran ignominiously badly for president in 1988 and 2008 before winning on his third try in 2020.

In 1988, he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where his track record included the traducing of Judge Robert Bork in a low and unseemly oversight performance that endeared him somewhat to the Left. But this won him scant support in the presidential primary, and his campaign collapsed in disgrace after Biden was exposed as a serial plagiarist on a scale so grand that by today’s standards he could be president of an Ivy League university.

He returned to the Senate and bided another 20 years before running again in 2008. But, just as happened two decades earlier, he achieved nothing more than the status of an also-ran, this time behind Hillary Clinton and the eventual nominee, Barack Obama. There are successful second acts in American politics, but Biden’s was little different than his first. Defeat followed defeat.

Then, however, came partial success. Obama, whom Biden had sought clumsily to compliment as “the first African American who [was] articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” plucked Joe from deepening obscurity and chose him as his vice presidential running mate. From defeat, Biden snatched the consolation of sidekick success.

Then came 2020, and once again Biden appeared to be heading for calamitous failure, placing fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary. But suddenly — boom! — he was rescued. Indeed, he was handed victory in South Carolina by Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), whose endorsement brought with it the state’s black vote. Other candidates threw in the towel, and the superannuated onetime no-hoper cruised to the Oval Office, where he now sits hoping for a second term.

Lord Randolph Churchill might therefore have summed up Biden’s career as “failure, failure, partial success, incipient failure, ultimate victory.” 

There, however, the parallel with Disraeli ends. The British statesman was a leader who made things happen and shaped politics. They didn’t just take place while he happened to be there, more or less coincidentally, at the top of what he referred to as the “greasy pole.” Disraeli overhauled his party and created modern conservatism. He was a populist who built a middle-class movement, patriotic sometimes jingoistic in character, that had little in common with the landed-gentry Tory party from which it grew.

Biden, by contrast, is neither leading nor reshaping his party. It is changing, for sure, but is doing so not because he is directing it but because he has little influence over what is happening to it. He is prepared to let others decide where it goes, as long as he is allowed to stay at the top of the greasy pole.

During his presidency, the Democratic Left has become a radical battering ram smashing down successive sets of protective doors behind which the norms, traditions, and decencies of our rule-of-law, liberal democratic culture lie vulnerable.

Biden did not fulfill his 2020 promise to be a centrist bulwark against the excesses of such colleagues as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) (how tame those two look today compared to the militants with whom leading Democrats fawningly express solidarity). Instead, before even arriving in office, Biden abandoned the schtick of a staunch centrist that he’d peddled to voters.

Having duped the country into believing he would restore order and decency after former President Donald Trump’s four chaotic years, he has made little effort to prevent the Democrats from subsiding into an unprincipled and intellectually incoherent agglomeration of, to borrow a phrase, “deplorables.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

That is not to say his presence has made no difference. It has been important in a negative sense. By being ineffectual, by going along with whatever has been proposed to him by the Obama holdovers and new radicals who staff his administration, by being an empty suit, our president has facilitated chaos at home and squandered American authority abroad.

For him, the only thing that has ever mattered was getting to the top of the greasy pole. What good he might do once he reaches the top is not a matter he appears to have considered deeply or about which he seems greatly to care.

Under Biden and Mayorkas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers with whom I served will only be allowed to deport 125,000 illegal immigrants in fiscal 2025 — less than half of the illegal immigrants deported in fiscal 2019 under President Donald Trump.

This is dangerous and in defiance of the law.

While this is occurring, thousands of ICE detention beds (a critical removal resource funded by America’s taxpayers) remain empty. Equally as bad, ICE could be tracking illegal immigrants with GPS monitoring, but it is refusing to do so on the proper scale.

So, during a record wave of illegal immigration and crime, Mayorkas is asking Congress to fund only 34,000 ICE detention beds next year as his own ICE director makes the rounds on Capitol Hill saying that 50,000 detention beds are necessary. The detention bed total requested by Mayorkas is also 7,500 fewer than the amount that is currently, and inadequately, funded by Congress. Does that sound like a man prioritizing the security of our homeland or a man bending to the wishes of radical open-border activists?

The Biden administration’s refusal to use every available detention bed and keep criminals from being set free into our communities has had tragic results. 

You’ve likely seen the recent headlines claiming that a “lack of detention space” was the reason the Biden administration released Jose Antonio Ibarra, Laken Riley’s alleged killer, into our country.

It turns out this was a lie. 

In the month Ibarra was released at the border, there were roughly 25,000 illegal immigrants in detention with thousands of beds empty, meaning that DHS could have detained (and later deported) Ibarra. If Biden had done this, Riley would be alive today. Instead, he was released, joining millions of illegal immigrants who freely roam American communities and later commit crimes against our fellow citizens.

The Biden administration’s efforts to dismantle detention and allow illegal immigrants to roam free also extend to other programs, such as the Alternatives to Detention. It was recently reported that Mohammad Kharwin, an Afghan national with terrorist ties, was quickly processed and then removed from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program after just over two weeks.

When Kharwin’s enrollment in ISAP, the original ATD program with GPS tracking, was terminated in March 2024, he was released onto the swelling non-detained docket of illegal immigrants (nearing 7 million, many whose whereabouts are unknown).

Eleven months later, in February of this year, Kharwin was added to the FBI terrorist watch list after new “concerning” information was obtained. ICE was notified and then, fortunately, was able to arrest him in San Antonio. He was held in detention until his court hearing two weeks ago, when a federal immigration judge ordered that he be released on bond despite ICE prosecutors arguing he was a flight risk. He was then released on bond for a brief period, but he is now back in federal custody, according to news reports.

Quickly releasing an Afghan national onto the unsupervised, non-detained docket after about two weeks on ISAP is indefensible, but it tracks with an alarming number of quick program terminations under the Biden administration.

The fact is that GPS monitoring significantly increases the likelihood that illegal immigrants will comply with their immigration proceedings. Those enrolled under ISAP have a 98.6% compliance rate for attending immigration hearings and are easier to locate if they abscond.  

Having served as a former ICE field office director, I can attest to this.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has failed to use the program efficiently or correctly, instead acting upon the wishes of “Abolish ICE” groups who not only oppose custodial detention but call any monitoring of illegal immigrants a “digital prison.” This explains why use of the program has decreased by 37%. As of late February, nearly 185,000 illegal immigrants are being monitored on ATD, a drop from 293,000 enrolled at the same time in 2023. 

Biden’s goal is to scrap ISAP entirely and turn ATD into social services paid by you, the taxpayer, to assist illegal immigrants as they arrive. This is already happening through the Young Adult Case Management Program and the Case Management Pilot Program, programs that House Republicans have unsuccessfully sought to terminate.

Unlike its use (or lack thereof) under the current administration, ISAP can serve as vital GPS monitoring of illegal immigrants so we can carry out large-scale deportations like those planned by President Donald Trump. 

With Biden and Mayorkas quietly continuing to abolish ICE and core agency functions from within, this open-border madness will continue — at least for now.  

Fortunately, come November, the public will have a clear choice on the ballot: catch and release or detain and deport.

It should be an easy answer.

John Fabbricatore is a former ICE field office director who serves on the National Immigration Center for Enforcement and is running for Congress in Colorado.

Those supporting SAFER state many reasons for the legislation, including promises of improved safety and more certainty for banks and financial institutions. Yet, there are glaring omissions in the bill’s language that don’t bode well for consumers or the public, particularly our nation’s children, who will pay the highest price. 

Oddly missing is clarity on the products eligible to utilize SAFER’s expansive banking and financial provisions and a directive for baseline safeguards on those eligible products. After all, who doesn’t support product transparency on psychoactive amounts, potencies, contaminants, and other added harmful substances? 

A lack of clarity that will put bankers, financial institutions, and investors in the undesirable position of advancing dangerous products, and deceptive business practices should SAFER pass without added safeguards. 

In a recent letter, 21 attorneys general across the country from both states with legal marijuana sales and those without legal marijuana sales describe these unacceptable risks and harms when it comes to highly psychoactive products deceptively labeled, marketed, and sold as hemp or CBD online, and in gas stations and convenience stores without any age gate or essential product safeguards. 

In their letter, they expressly point to the source of this problem as the “glaring vagueness created in the 2018 Farm Bill”. They write, “Regardless of your Committees’ intentions, the reality is that this law has unleashed on our states a flood of products that are nothing less than a more potent form of cannabis, often in candy form that is made attractive to youth and children—with staggering levels of potency, no regulation, no oversight and a limited capability for our offices to rein them in.”

Issues that also pertain to products marketed and sold as cannabis or marijuana due to a patchwork of regulations or lack thereof.  In a recent article in Science News, top neuroscientist Yasmin Hurd of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City describes today’s concentrated cannabis products as “new drugs” that are very different from what’s considered cannabis. “We need to start calling them something else,” she says in the article — a recommendation many have made. 

The stakes are high because the effects of these products can be devastating. These potent products are associated with severe psychiatric symptoms and disorders. A study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that just one psychotic episode following the use of such products was associated with a 47% probability of the person developing bipolar or schizophrenia disorder. It showed the risk is highest for young people ages 16 to 25 years old and that the risk is higher than for other substances, including alcohol, opioids, amphetamines, and hallucinogens.  

Nationwide, there has been a reported 1375% increase in pediatric edible cannabis accidental ingestions from 2017-2021, and THC has been the No. 1 substance found in teenagers ages 15-18 who died by suicide in Colorado since 2015. 

Congress has a precedent of addressing human safety issues through banking regulation. Many proponents of SAFER say it is about safety. If that is the case, the safety of consumers and our nation’s young people must also be a priority.

It took decades before our nation’s Surgeon General issued the report linking tobacco and ill health, a finding that triggered a public health crusade that continues today to reduce tobacco use. Do we have to learn the same hard-earned lessons over and over?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Allowing vague language without adequate clarification and safeguards will significantly advance today’s deceptive practices for consumers and put our youngest at undue harm.

We can and should do better; our nation’s children and young people deserve nothing less. 

Diane Carlson is co-founder and national policy director for One Chance to Grow Up. 

The Michaela Community School was founded and is run by a kindly but resolute disciplinarian called Katharine Birbalsingh, who is renowned as the strictest head teacher in Britain. She once worked as the national government’s “social mobility czar,” which suggests that she has clear ideas about what helps children from lower social classes rise and achieve success.

Her pupils must, among other things, wear neatly turned-out uniforms, keep silent in corridors between classes, and eat the same vegetarian lunches that everyone else does that do not breach any religious dietary restrictions. Michaela is rigorous, oversubscribed, and one of the best-performing academic schools in Britain. It is also free or, more precisely, financed from tax revenues rather than school fees.

It is secular, so there are no prayer spaces for the Muslims, who make up more than half the school roster, nor for the Christians, Hindus, and others taught there. That is where there was trouble. A Muslim student and her mother sued the school for infringing religious rights. But the High Court rightly rejected the claim this month, accepting the school’s argument that students for whom lunchtime religious practice is important are free to enroll in other schools if they are dissatisfied with the ethos at Michaela.

Birbalsingh is not opposed to religious practice outside school, but she will not allow it to divide her students, whom she is determined to unite in a single culture. Her statement in response to the court decision reveals this clearly. It contains no anti-religious sentiment, merely a determined embrace of a common ethos of which all pupils are required to be members and are expected to respect.

She said, “Schools should not be forced by one child and her mother to change [their] approach simply because they have decided they don’t like something about [their] school. At Michaela, we positively embrace small c conservative values which millions of people including so many of our families and pupils also value. Those values enable extraordinary academic progress. But they also promote a way of living, where gratitude, agency and personal responsibility, refusal of identity-politics victimhood, love of country, hard work, kindness, a duty toward others, self-sacrifice for the betterment of the whole, are fundamental to who we are. … At Michaela, we expect all religions to make the necessary sacrifices to enable our school to thrive.”

The head teacher finished her statement with a resounding expression of her resolution to win this battle for the benefit of the many, using the ancient Roman phrase “strength and honor.” The phrase, which is intended to identify a dignified path to success, will be familiar to many from its stirring use by Russell Crowe in the movie Gladiator. It suggests the steel required to defeat the corrupting and corrosive forces of identity politics now as much as for victory over barbarian hordes in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

But although Birbalsingh’s words and system at Michaela are mostly admirable and effective, she gets one thing wrong about what she has so splendidly created. It is that she still pays lip service to “multiculturalism.” She refers several times to it in her statement, but the truth is that Michaela is successful not because it is multicultural but because it is an oasis from multiculturalism.

The single ethos to which all pupils and their families must subscribe if they wish to belong is the antithesis of multiculturalism. The head teacher’s final words in her statement are “God save the King.” This gets to the truth of her success. Certainly her school is filled with children who come from different backgrounds, but she has built an establishment for their success that is united in a single shared culture, imbued with love of country.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The confusion over multiculturalism is reminiscent of the Left’s illogical analysis in 2012 when a British ethnic Somali athlete, Mo Farah, won Olympic gold medals. He celebrated by waving the British flag. The Left told us this showed the success of multiculturalism. But the reverse is true. A great athlete of foreign origin was adopting the preeminent symbol of the single, uniting national culture of the country that was now his home.

The lesson here in the U.S., and anywhere else with populations that are increasingly mixed ethnically, is that the country’s strength and honor, and its people’s unity and success, are best achieved not by nurturing cultural differences and pretending “our diversity is our strength,” but by fostering shared values. This does not suppress religious or other freedoms, but it does require a minimal sacrifice from those who wish to benefit from the great benison of living and working within the liberal democracies of the West.

Dhillon, who is also the founder and CEO of the Center for American Liberty, proclaimed the athletic conference the guardian of protecting females in sports. 

“There has been an unrelenting intimidation campaign from left-wing activists and woke big business to force athletic associations to capitulate to the will of the transgender movement,” Dhillon told me in an exclusive interview. “The NAIA is now the leader in protecting female athletes in college. It’s the first collegiate athletic association to take the affirmative step of banning men — regardless of hormone treatments or surgeries — from competing against women. This should challenge and inspire other athletic associations to follow suit and take a stand for fairness in women’s sports.”

Dhillon is absolutely correct on this. All other athletic conferences should follow the NAIA’s lead. Other than being too timid to confront the transgender wing of the radical left-wing mob, there’s no reason not to implement similar protocols to protect women from biological men in sports. 

It’s a precarious situation that will undoubtedly face many challenges in the future. Dhillon explained how it could be navigated in the legal world to eventually expand to the entire NCAA.

“The fight to protect women’s sports has been a nationwide grassroots movement,” Dhillon said. “Americans are thinking about the women in their lives and standing up for their safety, privacy, and future athletic opportunities in the face of an aggressive leftist agenda that is severely out of touch with the country. Within just a few years, this movement has spread like wildfire, with nearly half of all states now banning boys and men from women’s sports. The fire will only continue to grow until the NCAA can’t withstand the heat.”

She also explained how the NCAA has an obligation to protect women and listen to science. Dhillon also predicted the future legal path of protecting women’s sports, hinting that it would ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court.

“The reality is that until the NCAA sets aside its political agenda and listens to science, the views of most Americans, and the female athletes at its member schools, there won’t be fairness across all NCAA schools without an act of Congress or a ruling from the Supreme Court,” Dhillon said. “Members of Congress have repeatedly introduced legislation that would clarify that allowing men to compete on women’s teams violates Title IX. This would force federally funded schools to protect women’s sports.” 

“Given Congress’s inability to pass even the most basic legislation, it seems more likely that the Supreme Court will have to step up and preserve the original intent of Title IX,” Dhillon said. 

I also asked Dhillon about many of the issues surrounding the contemporary assault on our cultural norms by the left-wing mob. One thing I brought up was the fact that many in the media have seemingly surrendered to using the Left’s language on transgender issues. For example, while the NAIA’s policy protected the essence of fair athletic competition among women, many referred to the NAIA’s action as a “transgender ban.” Such phrasing is propaganda to taint the decision and aggressively portray it in a negative way. Transgender people were not being banned; female athletes were being protected.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“The legacy media is so deep in the pockets of left-wing activists and politicians that it’s unrealistic to expect they’ll ever stand for truth over political talking points,” Dhillon said. “However, as more organizations like NAIA or female athletes like Riley Gaines take this bold stand for fairness in women’s sports, the more the media will be unable to ignore the heart of this issue.” 

“Men are competing against women and robbing these hard-working athletes of the opportunities they’ve rightfully earned. Logic will prevail.”  

Obviously, the minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation over the years — something that’s even more glaring during President Joe Biden’s tenure. Perhaps this is why most voters agree that the minimum wage should be raised. 

A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports found that most adults believe the minimum wage should be raised. They are, however, conflicted on what that raise should be. Based on the current rate of $7.25 per hour established in 2009, an inflation calculator shows that an appropriate corresponding amount for minimum wage in 2024 would be $10.55. It represents a perfect example of why the minimum wage should be increased, though within reason. 

Incidentally, the Rasmussen poll found that the majority of respondents, 50%, felt that a new minimum wage should be raised to “at least $10.50 an hour.” This makes good fiscal sense and aligns with the inflation rate over the years. Other people had slightly different opinions, with varying totals for the wage. The poll revealed that 9% of people believed the wage should be $12.50 an hour, while 12% felt that $9.50 an hour was appropriate. Additionally, another 24% were “not sure.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As one might expect, there was an ideological divide on raising the minimum wage, but not as divided as one might think, given the political climate. Slightly over a third of Democrats, 36%, believed the wage should increase to the $15 per hour once touted by Sanders. This view was only shared by 18% of those who identified as Republicans and 22% of people who claimed not to be affiliated with either party. However, regarding the $10.50-per-hour figure, “42% of Republicans would support raising the minimum wage to at least $10.50 an hour, as would 59% of Democrats and 50% of the unaffiliated.”

Given this rare political consensus, combined with the undeniable economic impact of minimum wage stagnation, the country’s lawmakers should do the right thing and raise the minimum wage. There’s little reason this era should be the longest in the nation’s history without an increase.

For example, take former ESPN anchor Sage Steele and former ESPN and MSNBC host (and now certifiable lunatic) Keith Olbermann.

During an interview with Fox News last week, Steele recalled a 2021 interview that she had with President Joe Biden. Steele said that despite the appearance of it being a normal interview on the sports network, the interview was entirely set up and “scripted” and “structured” by ESPN’s executives. 

“That was an interesting experience in its own right because it was so structured,” Steele said. “And I was told, ‘You will say every word that we write out. You will not deviate from the script and go.’” 

“Every single question was scripted, gone over dozens of times by many editors and executives. Absolutely. I was on script and was told not to deviate,” Steele said during the interview. “It was very much: ‘This is what you will ask. This is how you will say it. No follow-ups. No follow-ups. Next.’ … This went up to the fourth floor, as we said, where all the bosses, the top executives, the decision-makers are, the president of our company, the CEO, where they all worked.”

Steele’s words did not sit well with Olbermann, however. The extremist left-wing talking head went apoplectic over Steele’s revelation. The guy who virulently whines about the importance of telling the truth in politics had a major problem with Steele’s decision to tell the truth. He then went on the attack on X.

“Of course it was scripted,” Olbermann said condescendingly. “If it hadn’t have been @sagesteele — the dumbest person I’ve ever worked with in sports or news — couldn’t have gotten through it.”

Olbermann’s questionable grammar usage in his social media post aside, insults and other ad hominem attacks are usually a sign of unhinged anger and irrationality. And considering that Steele interviewed numerous people during her time at ESPN, Olbermann’s insinuation that she would need a script (to get through an interview with the octogenarian Biden, of all people) is just the latest example of how Olbermann is, as he used to say during his talking show days, the worst person in the world. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Olbermann’s rage is indicative of how the Left works. Its supporters regularly mention the importance of being inclusive and embracing diversity — however, this only applies if one adheres to their political ideology and complies with their sociocultural demands. Steele had the audacity to tell the truth about Biden, and Olbermann couldn’t handle the truth, so he attacked Steele. It is what the Left has been doing for over 100 years. 

Fortunately, Steele is a warrior and Olbermann’s antics didn’t faze her. She just simply showed the country once again that Olbermann truly is the worst person in the world — and no one should ever take him or anything he says seriously.