College Students Don’t Need Protection from the Truth Academic research suggests ‘trigger warnings’ carry no significant benefit and may even cause psychological harm. By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-students-dont-need-protection-from-the-truth-11631825498?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

The collapsing justification for one university fad brings hope that others may follow. Even within the academic establishment, it seems that no one can mount a fact-based defense for the trendy notion that students need to be protected from potentially disturbing ideas. This week’s encouraging news also presents an interesting test case of whether academic institutions can still perform the basic functions for which they were created.

Carleton College professors Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Aaron Snyder write in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

When debates about trigger warnings first erupted, there was little-to-no research on their effectiveness. Today we have an emerging body of peer-reviewed research to consult.
The consensus, based on 17 studies using a range of media, including literature passages, photographs, and film clips: Trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress. They do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts, two hallmarks of PTSD. Notably, these findings hold for individuals with and without a history of trauma. (For a review of the relevant research, see the 2020 Clinical Psychological Science article “Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories” by Payton J. Jones, Benjamin W. Bellet, and Richard J. McNally.)
We are not aware of a single experimental study that has found significant benefits of using trigger warnings. Looking specifically at trauma survivors, including those with a diagnosis of PTSD, the Jones et al. study found that trigger warnings “were not helpful even when they warned about content that closely matched survivors’ traumas.”
What’s more, they found that trigger warnings actually increased the anxiety of individuals with the most severe PTSD, prompting them to “view trauma as more central to their life narrative.” “Trigger warnings,” they concluded, “may be most harmful to the very individuals they were designed to protect.”

In theory, universities exist to separate truth from superstition, fact from fiction and thereby create knowledge, which they are then supposed to share with the world.

Now that the relevant academic literature says that a highly influential academic theory is wrong, what are college administrators going to do about it? Will they abolish trigger warnings, or will they bitterly cling to a faith-based conviction that free inquiry must come with a warning label?

Hope for the Lost Souls of Liberalism The Western model of individual liberty and religious neutrality is in trouble. A return to the big questions is in order. By Barton Swaim

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberalism-crises-political-philosophy-religion-storey-kass-bloom-cancel-culture-war-11631889543?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Liberalism is in trouble. I don’t mean the narrow “liberalism” of the post-1960s Democratic Party, although that’s in trouble, too. I mean liberalism in the wider, classical sense—a view of government and society embracing free markets, representative democracy, individual freedom, strict limits on state power, and religious neutrality.

Twenty-five years ago, that understanding of liberalism was almost unquestionable. Not anymore. On the left, markets generate inequality, democracy works only when it achieves the right outcomes, individual freedom is uninteresting unless it involves sexual innovation or abortion, the state is everything, and religion doesn’t deserve neutrality. On the right—or anyway the intellectual/populist right—markets destroy traditional moral conventions, democracy is mostly a sham, individual freedom encourages behavioral deviancies, state power is a force for good, and the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion was likely a bad idea.

Partisans will dispute these characterizations, but the liberal order in America (and Europe) is under attack—and not without reason. Political debates in Washington are bereft of good faith, the education system idealizes self-hatred and sexual confusion, and even corporate leaders—who until yesterday could be counted on to champion patriotism and hard work—eagerly recite the maxims of idiots.

1776 Unites Curriculum Highlights the American Character . Mike Sabo

https://realclearwire.com/articles/2021/09/17/1776_unites_curriculum_highlights_the_american_character_794627.html

Teachers looking for a history and civics curriculum that focuses on America’s promise of securing liberty for all have a new resource: the 1776 Unites curriculum. A creation of 1776 Unites, an initiative of the Woodson Center focused on reviving American education and culture, the curriculum embraces the “ideas of family, faith, and entrepreneurship that have enabled all Americans – including black Americans – throughout history to move from persecution to prosperity.”

As 1776 Unites members wrote in an open letter to the National School Boards Association and local school boards, the curriculum “offers authentic, motivating stories from American history that show what is best in our national character and what our freedom makes possible even in the most difficult circumstances.”

According to entrepreneur and civil rights leader Bob Woodson, it tells stories of “black Americans who seized their own destinies and flourished despite the harsh restrictions imposed by true institutional racism in the form of slavery and Jim Crow.”

The curriculum currently features 15 units for high school students on black entrepreneurs and philanthropists such as Biddy Mason, Elijah McCoy, and Paul Cuffe; athletes such as Jesse Owens and Alice Coachman; and important events from American history such as the Tulsa race massacre. Woodson says that the units released so far have purposefully “covered multiple lesser-known stories of black excellence and resilience from history.”

Access to the curriculum, which has already been downloaded over 20,000 times, is free with registration at the 1776 Unites website. Each unit contains a wealth of resources including lesson plans, primary sources, questions for classroom discussion, a Power Point presentation, multiple-choice questions, learning standards, and more. A curriculum for K-8 students will be released soon.

Woodson notes that most school curricula have been traditionally “short on inspiring stories of black achievement.” Instead, as seen with the New York Times’s 1619 Project, “the narrative of racial grievance has been corrupting the instruction of American history and the humanities for many decades – and has accelerated dangerously over the past year.” Woodson continues: “The most damaging effects of such instruction fall on lower income minority children, who are implicitly told that they are helpless victims with no power or agency to shape their own futures.”

The Meaning of Constitution Day By The 1776 Commission

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2021/09/17/the_meaning_of_constitution_day_794952.html

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago on this date, 39 delegates from throughout the fledgling United States signed our Constitution, uniting a diverse population into one nation, bound together by common principles and a deep reverence for liberty.

The signing of the Constitution began the fulfillment of the promise made in the Declaration of Independence. These two documents, along with the Bill of Rights, are America’s Charters of Freedom.

The Constitution paved the way for the liberation of many millions, in the United States and around the world, from the shackles of poverty, despotism, and slavery. Powerful forces today are seeking to smear America’s founding as essentially unjust for preserving slavery, but it was through the provisions of the Constitution – informed by the principles of the Declaration – that slavery in our nation was eradicated.

A year ago today, President Donald Trump – recognizing the danger of the ongoing attacks on the American heritage in academia, in the corporate world, in the media, and in the halls of government – announced the creation of The President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. Doing so, he vowed that “the legacy of 1776 will never be erased” and that “our heroes will never be forgotten.”

This past January, on Martin Luther King Jr., Day, The 1776 Commission released The 1776 Report – a robust restatement of America’s founding principles and ideals. The 1776 Report detailed how slavery, fascism, communism, racism, and identity politics are antithetical to those principles and ideals, and it called on schools to “reject any curriculum that promotes one-sided partisan opinions, activist propaganda, or factional ideologies that demean America’s heritage, dishonor our heroes, or deny our principles.”

New Durham indictment exposes second leg of Hillary Clinton’s Russia collusion dirty trick Indictment alleges Democrat lawyer was paid by Clinton campaign to develop documents on alleged Russia collusion computer link to Trump and give it to FBI in final days of election despite concerns it was a ‘red herring’ John Solomon

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary

Nearly two years after evidence emerged that the infamous Steele dossier was a political dirty trick filled with Russian disinformation and disproved allegations, Special Counsel John Durham unloaded a new indictment that exposes a parallel effort by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to flood the FBI with more dubious Trump-Russia collusion dirt.

In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election.

Sussmann delivered the package in mid-September 2016 — just weeks before Election Day as Trump and Clinton were locked in a tight race — to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, even after the team of computer experts warned the theory was a “red-herring,” according to the indictment.

And then Sussmann falsely told Baker, the prosecutors alleged, he was providing the information to the FBI solely as a good citizen, and not on behalf of any client.

In fact, Sussmann was working on behalf of a tech executive and the Clinton campaign and charged nearly all the work on the Alfa Bank narrative to the Democratic presidential campaign, including his meeting with Baker, the indictment stated.

The alleged lying, Durham argued, deceived the FBI into thinking the allegations were coming from a neutral source — Sussmann had been a cybersecurity expert — and not an election-motivated client.

MacArthur was fired; Milley should be court-martialed By John Mastronardi

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/macarthur_was_fired_milley_should_be_courtmartialed.html

Douglas MacArthur was one the nation’s greatest generals.  In his time, there was no more revered, lauded, and beloved military figure.  He graduated first in his class at West Point, where, after service in WWI, he served as its superintendent.  During WWII, he was promoted to the rank of General of the Army in 1944 and given command of all Army forces in the Pacific.  On September 2, 1945, it was MacArthur who accepted Japan’s unconditional surrender, ending the war.  Following the surrender, he served as the military governor of Japan, helping to usher in a modern government and economy.  When North Korea invaded South Korea, in June 1950, it was MacArthur whom Truman put in command of the U.N. forces to repel the invasion and prevent South Korea from falling to communism.  It was a no-brainer.

After MacArthur drove the North Korean forces back across the 38th Parallel, the official demarcation line between the North and the South, beginning with a brilliant landing at Inch’ŏn harbor, the Communist Chinese sent massive forces into Korea in support of the North and drove the U.N. forces back below the 38th Parallel and into South Korea.  After recovering, MacArthur once again commanded his forces to send the enemy back into North Korea.

Unfortunately for MacArthur, he had an ego to match his brilliant military acumen.  It was this brash and flamboyant side that resulted in his being unceremoniously relieved of command of the U.N. forces.

Truman’s stated policy was for a more limited war in Korea to limit casualties and not risk a third world war.  MacArthur disagreed with this policy and wanted to expand the conflict to continue the advance into China and said so, publicly.  In doing so, he defied the commander-in-chief, President Truman, and thus, he was deemed to have threatened the civilian-military control balance.  For this transgression, along with several other earlier episodes of defiance, on April 11, 1951, Truman removed MacArthur from his command for insubordination.  In a statement made to the American people regarding the firing, Truman explained he had done it “so that there would be no doubt or confusion as to the real purpose and aim of our policy.”  In short, the civilians are in charge and set the policy, not the generals.

It has now come to light that while Trump was president, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Mark Milley, on his own initiative, in a demented effort at professional courtesy, contacted a top-ranking Chinese general to give him the “heads-up” that if the U.S. were to attack, he would call ahead to let him know.  In addition, Milley communicated to and apparently coordinated with speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and then–minority leader Charles Shumer, in the waning days of the Trump presidency, to limit Trump’s abilities as the constitutionally designated commander-in-chief by improperly inserting himself into the nuclear launch sequence.  Not only were these acts insubordinate, but they arguably constitute conspiracy to commit treason.  They make what MacArthur did look like an infraction of failing to salute a superior officer.

Talk about a mixture of irony and idiocy in Israeli COVID policy By Ruthie Blum  

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/talk-about-a-mixture-of-irony-and-idiocy-in-israeli-covid-policy-679607

When Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz was caught on a hot mic on Sunday admitting that the “green pass” system is a necessary means of pressuring the public to get vaccinated — and not based on epidemiology — his remarks were treated by Channel 12 as a big scoop. His words were also held up by anti-vaxxers as evidence of the government’s allegedly unjustified coercion.

“We don’t want to do things that have no medical justification,” Horowitz was heard telling Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, in response to her saying that the restriction on outdoor dining should be lifted. “But I’m telling you that we have a problem. The ‘green pass’ isn’t even being enforced; certainly not in the Arab sector, where it doesn’t exist at all. And I’m seeing the effect on the hospitals.”

At this moment, Intelligence Minister Elazar Stern approached the pair and chimed in, “It’s annoying that they’re taking up the [hospital] beds,” he said.
“Those in intensive care, yes,” added Horowitz.

It’s pretty funny that the exchange caused such a stir. Anyone exposed to the changing regulations as much as to the virus itself knows that his revelation contained both truth and inherent contradictions.

Indeed, Israelis have come to grasp that the only real consensus among health officials these days surrounds the efficacy of inoculation – though some doctors have been questioning the need for or wisdom of a third jab. The rest of the incessant discussions and debates to which we are treated on a daily basis sound like background noise.

We also realize by now that the frequently incomprehensible rules were put in place for those who were likely to follow them. Knocking on an open door is always easier than trying to bang down a closed one, after all.

HOROWITZ IS probably kicking himself while wiping egg off his face for having his honesty aired unwittingly. But the “green pass” and “traffic light” systems are and have been pointless, particularly in a state like Israel.
Let’s not forget that it’s a country whose citizens – Jewish, Arab, haredi, National-Religious or secular – are used to and adept at finding loopholes. This is especially the case when directives appear illogical. Yet even when they make sense, the populace is perfectly content to ignore them.

Israelis of all stripes can be seen puffing away next to “no smoking” signs, for example, or playing Frisbee under “keep off the grass” placards. Ditto for picnickers who leave behind garbage on beaches and in parks, despite admonitions and an abundance of trash cans.

Nevertheless, most of the public rushed to receive the first and second doses of the vaccine, and nearly a third of the population has already been treated to No. 3. It’s not for nothing that Israel is noted for its impressive inoculation drive.

Afghanistan Through Michael Scheuer’s Eyes If only our “experts” had listened to his prophetic warnings. Andrew Harrod

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/09/afghanistan-through-michael-scheuers-eyes-andrew-harrod/

Many Western observers “have ignored the very real accomplishments and popular acceptance of the Taliban government in Afghanistan,” then-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer wrote anonymously in 2002. His previously-analyzed book, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, contains sobering analysis, which foresaw the failure of American-led nation-building efforts in Afghanistan 20 years later.

Scheuer had focused on Afghanistan while tracking Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit in the years before and after September 11, 2001. Although since his 2004 retirement from the CIA he has exposed himself as an anti-Israel, conspiracy-mongering crank, his 2002 writings about attempts to liberalize  Afghanistan were highly thought-provoking. Already at the time he had criticized that the “Afghan war, then, is an opportunity for social work of international scope, not an opportunity to destroy al Qaeda.”

Afghanistan’s recent history of the mujahedeen defeating Soviet occupation in the decade 1979-1989 demonstrated for Scheuer the foolhardiness of any Afghan Islamic democracy project. “In fact, it is vital to recall that, next to the Soviets, the biggest losers in Afghanistan were the Muslim world’s Western-minded scholars, politicians, and intellectuals,” he wrote. He explained:

The Afghan jihad confronted the theoreticians of democratic Islam with a hard reality. The Red Army was not defeated by a democratic revolution, but by an Islamist revolution grounded, guided, and steeled by God’s words as found in the Koran and explained by the Prophet. Driven by their faith, the mujahedin used bullets, not votes, to win one for Allah.

Quoting Harvard University political scientist Tarek Masoud, Scheuer noted a “basic political fact” about democracy in Islam’s Arabic heartland. Masoud had observed that

there exists no grassroots movement for democracy in the Arab world, largely because democracy does not resonate with the average Arab. It has no basis the Arab past and is tainted by its association with the West.

Scheuer cautioned Americans who celebrated the quick American-led overthrow of Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers following 9/11. Many of these Westerners “have taken their lead from Mrs. Jay Leno and the Hollywood wives and equated the fall of Kabul with the liberation of Dachau.” But he noted how the Taliban’s sharia supremacy had found favor among many Afghans, for now the “murder, bribery, kidnapping, and extortion that the Taliban had all but eliminated have again become commonplace.” “Although reviled by the West as violent medieval madmen, the Taliban teamed its imposition of strict Islamic law with a slow process of rebuilding and modernizing Afghanistan’s war-ravaged infrastructure,” he added.

Election Officials Don’t Know What Happened to 15 Million Mail Ballots in 2020 Election Real data — from a federal agency. J. Christian Adams

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/09/election-officials-dont-know-what-happened-15-j-christian-adams/

As any casual observer could tell, the 2020 election was a mess. Now we have real data—from a federal agency, no less—that proves it.

Based on data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an analysis by the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows almost 15 million mail ballots effectively disappeared after election officials gave them to the U.S. Postal Service to deliver to voters.  

Gone, like the Bermuda Triangle of the election.

Some of the mail ballots may have ended up on the floors of apartment complexes. Some were sent to deceased registrants. Some went to addresses where the registrant no longer lives. Some may have gone to vacant lots and businesses. Some, having never been requested by the voter, were never returned.

In 2020, we put the election in the hands of the people who regularly deliver you your neighbor’s mail.

The data also shows that an additional 1.1 million ballots were sent to the wrong addresses in 2020 – the U.S. Postal Service saying they were “undeliverable.” Think on that. One million ballots went to the wrong house or apartment.

This report proves that mass voting by mail leads to chaos, is ripe with opportunities to commit fraud, and disenfranchises voters.

What was the effect on the election outcome?  That depends on other unknowns.  What we do know is that massive numbers of lost ballots present enormous potential for abuse.  The fact of untracked, nearly 15 million ballots triggers an unavoidable cascade of serious, fundamental, deeply troubling questions. 

Such as, how many of those were voted by unintended recipients?  This can’t be known.  Another obvious question is, how many people failed to vote because their ballots went astray?  This too can’t be known.  Another question is why are the voter rolls so inaccurate that wrong addresses are so common? 

Places like Pennsylvania had to be sued to be forced into correcting them.  Another question is why do so many election officials not care?  

To put that 15 million figure in perspective, consider this in Pennsylvania 440,000 mail ballots went missing or were undeliverable in the 2020 election. President Biden won the state by only 81,000 votes.

Mark Milley Exposes the Myth of American ‘Democracy’ By Josh Hammer

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/16/mark-milley-exposes-the-myth-of-american-democracy/

Milley’s attack on civilian control of the military is the latest indication that our wokeist ruling class will take no prisoners in its assault upon the pillars of the American constitutional order.

This week’s deeply unsettling revelation of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s alleged late Trump administration-era perfidy, bordering on high treason, is but one glaring fusillade in a years-long crusade by America’s decrepit ruling class to condemn and ultimately subjugate us “deplorables,” “wrong-thinkers” and all others with a conservative or traditionalist worldview. It is a shot across the bow in that roiling cold domestic conflict, and a clarion call as to the relevant stakes. It is also a brazen assault on one of the most rudimentary defining features of America’s constitutional order — an assault that exposes the lie that the ruling class and its left-wing echo chamber denizens care one whit about the very “democracy” they invariably claim to cherish.

To recap, a leak of a forthcoming book from Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, “Peril,” claims that two days after the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot, Milley was so bothered by former President Donald Trump’s demeanor and conduct that he deemed it necessary to take unilateral action outside the formal chain of command. Specifically, Milley allegedly convened a rogue meeting with senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s de facto war room, to tell them not to accept military orders from anyone unless he was personally involved.

In effect, Milley, haunted by hysterical cable news-induced nightmares and caving to delusions of grandeur, took impetuous action to cut out the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces himself from the formal chain of command. He did so, we are made to believe, out of fear the lame-duck president might launch a high-scale attack or nuclear weapon strike, perhaps against China.

Although the qualifier “allegedly” is perhaps strictly necessary to describe Milley’s actions, it is worth noting that Milley’s office responded to the leak by issuing a nonapology “apology.” Milley’s “calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with (his) duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability,” the response statement from spokesperson Col. Dave Butler read.