For the first time in my life, I did not root for an
American team. Whatever the sport, I have always rooted American. But if those
who called into my radio show were representative of my audience, many millions
of Americans made the same sad choice.

It takes a lot for people like me not to root for an
American team. But Megan Rapinoe, the foul-mouthed star of the team, and her
fellow players made it possible.

The U.S. women’s team disgraced itself. Either its members
were cowed into submission by Rapinoe or they agreed (or, at least, never
disagreed) with her attacks on the president, her reference to the White House
as the “f—ing White House,” her refusal since 2016 to participate
in the national anthem, and her repeatedly shouting during the team’s parade in
New York City, “New York, you’re the motherf—ing best!”

For example, Rapinoe said, “Every member of the team
that I have talked to would not go” to the White House.

Rapinoe is a great soccer player. Other than that, she is
unimpressive. She comes across as arrogant, a fool, and a lowlife.

Why a fool? Because she thinks she has something important
to say to the American people and that we need to hear it because she is a
great soccer player. She is not alone in this conceit.

Tom Steyer and other billionaires think the same thing about
themselves: that because they are better at making money than almost everybody,
they must be wiser than almost everybody.

People who excel in one thing are tempted to think they are
smart about everything, but that is almost never the case. There is no reason
at all to assume that people who excel in anything (other than wisdom) are
wiser than anybody else.

And here’s the kicker (no pun intended): People who think
they are wise because they excel at something unrelated to wisdom are fools.

And why is Rapinoe a lowlife? What would you label any adult who constantly used the F-word in public (especially during events when children are expected to be present or watching)? Or does being a star—like the foul-mouthed Robert De Niro—make you less of a lowlife?

The American women’s soccer team is unified in protesting on behalf of “equal pay for equal work.” It regards its team as a perfect example because its members receive less money than members of the U.S. men’s soccer team—despite the fact that the women have a much better record.

But there is a reason the male players earn more. Among other things—such as the women’s team’s vote for financial security in the form of guaranteed salaries rather than revenue share—men’s soccer generates far more money than women’s soccer.

According to the Los Angeles Times: FIFA’s “2018
financial report said it earned revenue of $5.357 billion from the men’s
tournament in Russia. … Forbes estimated the Women’s World Cup will generate
about $131 million for the four-year cycle ending in 2022.”

So, unless people should be paid according to gender (which
they now are in Norway) rather than according to revenue and profits, male
soccer players will earn more money than female soccer players.

There are only two ways to equitably ensure male and female players earn the same amount of money. One is to pool all the money earned by both teams and then distribute an equal amount to all the players, men and women.

The other is to end sex-based teams: Men and women compete
to play on one team (composed of both men and women), and any woman who makes
the team is guaranteed the same income as any man on the team.

Until then, the women’s soccer team and the left want to have their cake and eat it, too.

(Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., for example, tweeted this non sequitur: “Here’s an idea: If you win 13-0—the most goals for a single game in World Cup history—you should be paid at least equally to the men’s team.”)

They want women to have their own soccer teams—because biology has made it impossible for almost any woman to successfully compete with men in sports—yet earn the same amount as men do.

But the reality is more people will watch men play soccer, just as more people watch Major League Baseball than Minor League Baseball—which is why Major League Baseball players earn more money than Minor League players. But if we applied the equal-pay-for-equal-work principle to baseball, Minor League and Major League players would be paid the same amount.

With their politicization of their victory, their expletive-filled speech, and their publicly expressed contempt for half their fellow citizens, the women of the U.S. women’s soccer team succeeded in endearing themselves to America’s left.

But they earned the rest of the country’s disdain, which is sad. We really wanted to love the team.

What we have here is yet another example of perhaps the most
important fact in the contemporary world: Everything the left touches it ruins.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post Women’s Soccer Team More Proof the Left Ruins Everything It Touches appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The world recently learned that the American Psychological Association promotes “polyamory,” “swinging,” and “relationship anarchy.” Its experts say it’s healthy and ethical. They’re crazy.

Leftists who run our nation’s public schools love to hide behind the skirts of the American Psychological Association when it comes to crazy sex ed. So in a recent column I wondered how long it would take for them to push polyamory on the pubertal.

Then I learned they already do.

Targeting California Kids

It was a California teacher who discovered the “LGBT Consensual Non-Monogamy Task Force.” She was reviewing the state Department of Education’s “health” lesson mandates for the fall and stumbled across a term she didn’t know. She went to look it up, and was led to the American Psychological Association.

California instructs teachers to talk to youngsters about sex “partners.” They are to avoid terms like “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” because “some students may be non-monogamous.” This is in the lesson plan for 12-year-olds.

There it is. The American Psychological Association reaching its crusty paw all the way down to pre-pubertal kids.

For a stomach-churning exercise, read through all of the California Revised Draft Health Education Framework (April 2019 revision, the final version comes out this Fall).

The Education Department tells teachers that 14-year-olds “may have various gender identities and sexual orientations.” Indeed, “there are an infinite number of ways an individual can express their individuality and sense of self.”

Special emphasis is to be given to non-heterosexual ways, however. “Teachers should affirmatively acknowledge the existence of relationships that are not heterosexual by actively using examples of same-sex couples in class discussions.”

All of this is to ensure the classroom is a “safe environment.” Though it most certainly is not safe for the innocence of children.

California urges teachers to bring outside sexperts into the classroom. Provided they are “vetted.”

Planned Parenthood is apparently pre-approved, as it is given a special plug in the directives: “By the seventh and eighth grade, students are often more willing and eager to engage with guest speakers” from “local nonprofit organizations, such as Planned Parenthood.”

Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop…

“Polysexual” and “pansexual” are “common” sexual orientations for high schoolers, teachers are told. But they are to keep in mind that “gender and sexuality are often fluid and do not always fit neatly into these categories.”

That might be funny if they weren’t talking about kids.

Using Kids as Lab Rats

California schools aren’t the only ones intentionally sexualizing kids. Northern Virginia schools are also used as “laboratories” for LGBT policy experimentation. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network admitted that to The Washington Post last year.

After reading my column, a mom in Fairfax wrote to me about the “thruples” and “quadruples” (rhymes with couples) her kids encountered at a Fairfax County high school. These are polyamorous groups of three or four.

“These groups are allowed to openly ‘be together’ (hold hands, kiss, wrap arms, etc.), just as standard couples are in the halls,” she said.

She also told me there are “furries.” Rhymes with insane. Poor souls who believe they are animals and self-identify as such. “This year, we have some cats and a fox.”  

There is a very good chance that most moms and dads are not even remotely aware of the insanity going on in government schools today. None of it is by accident. All of it is by design. All of it funded by you and me.

Children are being used as lab rats in a social experiment. Without the consent of their parents. But with the encouragement and approval of the American Psychological Association.

Sickness is health, bad is good, wrong is right. And there is no tolerance for those who might disagree.

It’s past time to take back our public schools, where 86% of American kids are sent, supposedly for an education. Justice demands that we rescue these children. But wisdom demands it, too.

Because, as Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation, will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

Originally published in The Stream

The post California Public Schools Promote Polyamory for Preteens appeared first on The Daily Signal.

KYIV, Ukraine—The recent military
tension between the U.S. and Iran underscores a new era of conflict, some
military officials and analysts say, in which a country’s power on the world
stage is no longer measured solely by economic clout, military force, or even
diplomatic sway. 

Rather, the audacious use of misinformation to shape public
opinion at home and abroad allows countries like Iran and Russia to punch well
above their hard and soft power weight classes in shaping world events. 

To that end, experts say Iran has put into practice lessons in hybrid warfare that Moscow field-tested on the battlefields of Ukraine and later unleashed against Western democracies.

“Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf
resemble, in their intent, Russia’s hybrid warfare operations that we have seen
in Ukraine and elsewhere,” said Nataliya Bugayova, Russia research fellow at
the Institute for the Study of War, a U.S. think tank.

“Russia and Iran use hybrid warfare operations to
advance their broader aims while trying to obfuscate reality on the ground and
prevent the West from taking action to defend its interests,” Bugayova said,
adding that Iran “has a history of learning from Russia on the battlefield.”

In this new era of hybrid warfare, adversaries are able to threaten American security interests and undermine the U.S.-led democratic world order without resorting to direct military action.

Instead, by shifting the burden of conflict escalation onto the
U.S., practitioners of hybrid warfare test whether American leaders are willing
to retaliate against nonlethal, “gray zone” activities with lethal military
force.

“Future confrontations between major powers may most often occur below the level of armed conflict. In this environment, economic competition, influence campaigns, paramilitary actions, cyber intrusions, and political warfare will likely become more prevalent,” Navy Rear Adm. Jeffrey Czerewko, deputy director for global operations at the Joint Staff, writes in the Pentagon’s recently released, unclassified assessment of Russia’s strategic intentions.

Since 2014, Russia has used Ukraine as a testing ground for both
its modern conventional and hybrid warfare doctrines, providing a case study
for the new kinds of security threats the U.S. and its Western allies can
anticipate from their adversaries. 

Iran, too, has turned to gray zone tactics to
offset its own inferiority to the U.S. in terms of conventional military
power. 

Tehran’s recent docket of gray zone activities
include unconventional attacks by proxies, as well as nonlethal acts of
aggression like the sabotage of oil tankers and pipelines. 

At every turn, Iran masks its operations behind the veil of barely plausible propaganda yarns—a key tenet of Russian hybrid warfare. So, too, is the concept of victim playing—the appropriation of false victimhood to justify one’s own bad behavior—which Russia has frequently invoked to justify its global hybrid warfare offensive as a legitimate counterbalance against alleged American imperialism.

“There are certainly parallels between Iran’s activities in the
Persian Gulf and Russia’s activities in Ukraine, in the sense that they are
both using clandestine operations as part of a broader conflict,” said Eugene
Chausovsky, a geopolitical analyst who specializes in the former Soviet Union
for the U.S.-based security think tank Stratfor.

Both U.S. and Iranian leaders say they don’t want war, but the
prospect of an accidental conflict is increasing, experts warn. 

That prognosis nearly came to fruition on June 20 when Iran shot
down a U.S. RQ-4A Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle with a surface-to-air
missile. U.S. officials protested, saying the surveillance drone was operating
in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. 

President Donald Trump authorized retaliatory airstrikes but
reportedly called them off with only 10 minutes to spare. Ultimately, the U.S.
opted for a retaliatory cyberattack, instead. 

On Wednesday, tensions flared again as Iranian
gunboats reportedly attacked a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf.

“Such types of unconventional and clandestine operations are
likely only to increase,” Chausovsky said.

‘Deep Battle’

In 2014, the United States and the European Union levied punitive
economic sanctions on Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine. Since then,
relations between Russia and the West have hit a post-Cold War nadir. 

Using cyberwarfare and an empire of weaponized propaganda, Russia
has embarked on a hybrid war blitz against Western democracies. Looking back,
it’s clear that Ukraine was the opening salvo of Russia’s ongoing war against
that American-led, democratic world order. 

“Russian leadership sees itself as at war with the U.S. and the West as a whole,” notes Nicole Peterson, a security analyst, in the Pentagon white paper on Russia’s strategic intentions.

“From a Russian perspective, this war is not total, but rather, it
is fundamental—a type of ‘war’ that is at odds with the general U.S.
understanding of warfare,” she added.

Hybrid warfare is the Kremlin’s contemporary take
on a Soviet military doctrine called “deep battle,” in which front-line combat
operations are supported with other actions meant to spread chaos and confusion
within the enemy’s territory.

An evolving threat that spans every combat domain, hybrid warfare
combines conventional military force with other so-called gray zone activities,
such as cyberattacks and propaganda, both on the battlefield and deep behind
the front lines. 

One of hybrid warfare’s most dangerous attributes is that it
weaponizes many staples of everyday life, including smartphones, social media
networks, commercially available computer software—and journalism.

“I think we’re generally moving toward a reality in which hybrid
warfare will be the preferred modus operandi of states like Russia, China,
Iran, over and above conventional warfare,” Aleksandra Gadzala, and independent
security consultant and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told The Daily
Signal.

“The way in which Moscow wages hybrid warfare has evolved and
expanded rather significantly since the Euromaidan—ditto Chinese tactics since
[Chinese President Xi Jinping] took office. Iran is no different,” Gadzala
said, referring to Ukraine’s pro-Western 2014 revolution.

‘Poor Man’s War’

America’s military dwarfs Russia’s. U.S. defense
spending in 2018 reached $649 billion, compared with Russia’s $61
billion that year, according to an April report from the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute. 

Economically, too, Russia is far from America’s
peer. Russia’s nominal gross domestic product is about half that of
California’s—roughly on par with South Korea. 

With that in mind, Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy is basically
“a poor man’s war,” according to a June report from the Institute for the Study
of War.

“[Russian President Vladimir Putin] is sufficiently in contact
with reality to know that he will fail if he attempts to regain anything
approaching conventional military parity with the West,” note the report’s
authors. “Putin has every reason to believe that outright confrontation with
the American military will end badly for him.” 

Despite Russia’s conventional weaknesses, however, the country is
a hybrid superpower with an unparalleled ability to control the world’s
attention economy.

Russia has weaponized information by deploying its state-run media organizations to undermine Western societies and democratic institutions. 

Taking advantage of Americans’ historically low levels of
confidence in journalism, Russia’s information warfare is precision-targeted on
the American people through the internet and social media. These activities
manipulate and inflame divisions within American society—often turning
Americans against each other.

“Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which
Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are
frequently subordinated in this way of war,” according to the Institute for the
Study of War report. “Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the
discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, ‘Who knows
if the Russians really did that? Who knows if it was legal?’—thus paralyzing
the West’s responses.”

On June 19—the day prior to Iran’s attack on the U.S.
drone—international investigators charged three Russians and a Ukrainian for
murder for their role in using a Russian Buk surface-to-air missile to shoot
down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, killing all 298 passengers and
crew on board. 

The missile was fired from within territory controlled by
pro-Russian separatists, and its mobile launch vehicle belonged to Russia’s
53rd Air Defense Brigade and was sent back to Russia the next day, the report
noted.

Putin dismissed the charges, telling journalists, “There is no evidence of Russia’s blame for the downing
of MH17.”

“Russia has its own explanation of the crash of
MH17, but no one is listening to us,” Putin reportedly said.

‘Be Careful’

The U.S. withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement
with Iran in May 2018. Since then, renewed American sanctions have targeted
Tehran’s financial and industrial sectors, dealing the country’s economy a
devastating body blow.

With oil exports down by 90%, Tehran is quickly
running out of cash while inflation skyrockets. The International Monetary Fund
predicts Iran’s economy will shrink by about 6% this year—an abrupt reversal
from the Islamic Republic’s 4.6% growth rate in the previous fiscal year. 

Under pressure from U.S. sanctions, analysts say Iran has purposefully ratcheted up its gray zone activities to
scare European leaders into making concessions on sanctions.

July 6 was the end of a 60-day deadline imposed
by Iran on European nations to somehow ease the pressure of U.S. sanctions.
With no help forthcoming from Europe, Iran announced July 7 that it was moving
forward on uranium enrichment, violating the 2015 nuclear deal’s terms. In
turn, U.S. officials are now mulling additional sanctions on Iran.

“Iran better be careful,” President Donald Trump
reportedly said of the recent developments.

In 2015, Iran and Russia signed a military defense pact, underscoring a closer military relationship intended to counter U.S. influence in the Middle East. 

Russia supplies Iran with military hardware, including advanced
surface-to-air missile systems. Russia has also helped to build some of Iran’s
nuclear reactors.

It’s clear, some experts say, that Russia has also allied itself with Iran in the information war to paint the U.S. as a global aggressor. 

Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on June 25,
Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council and a close aide to
Putin, said Russia had intelligence to prove the downed U.S. drone was flying
in Iranian airspace. 

Patrushev went on to dismiss U.S. intelligence
proving that Iran was responsible for a recent series of attacks on oil tankers
in the Middle East. 

“Russia and Iran are closely
aligned and work to enable and shield one another’s efforts. In this instance,
the Kremlin has been front and center with a broader information campaign
supporting the Iranian regime’s false narrative that Iran is the victim and not
the aggressor,” said Bugayova, the Institute for the Study of War fellow.

A Hybrid Failure

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in March 2014. The
following April, Russian intelligence agents and special operations forces
orchestrated a separatist uprising in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, spawning
two breakaway republics.

The Kremlin said its 2014 seizure of Crimea and the ensuing
conflict in the Donbas were both spurred by grassroots uprisings created and
led by disaffected Russian-speaking Ukrainians who believed the new government
in Kyiv was illegitimate—the product of a CIA-orchestrated putsch to install a
fascist, neo-Nazi, pro-American government in Kyiv.

Moscow had planned its Donbas operation for years, and many pieces
were already in place before Ukraine’s 2014 revolution. Consequently, in its
early months, Russia’s hybrid offensive was on the march, leapfrogging across
the Donbas, taking town after town.

At that time, Ukraine’s regular army was on its heels. Depleted by
decades of corruption, it could only field about 6,000 combat-ready soldiers
when the war began. So, to defend their homeland, everyday Ukrainians filled
the ranks of irregular, civilian combat units and set out for the front lines.

It was a grassroots war effort—an example of a society that didn’t
need to be prodded into a war by propaganda. Rather, Ukrainians of all stripes
simply took up arms, often with little or no formal military training, and
fought to defend their homeland. 

Ultimately, this ragtag coalition of Ukraine’s regular and irregular forces stopped the combined Russian-separatist advance by using what the RAND Corp. described as “a siege warfare campaign, leveraging Ukraine’s vastly superior numbers, artillery, and air power to steadily encircle and push out the separatists from fortified terrain.”

By July 2014, just three months into the conflict, Ukrainian
forces had retaken 23 out of the 36 districts previously under combined
Russian-separatist control. Then in August 2014, with its hybrid operation in
shambles, Russia outright invaded eastern Ukraine. 

Ultimately, Ukraine sued for peace after the disastrous battle for
Illovaisk, in which regular Russian units killed hundreds of Ukrainian
troops. 

The subsequent September 2014 cease-fire stopped the war from
escalating further. A second cease-fire, known as Minsk II, was signed in
February 2015.

Yet, from an operational perspective, Russia’s original hybrid
warfare plan in the Donbas was a failure. In a 2017 study, the RAND Corp.
concluded that in eastern Ukraine Russia “failed to achieve the leverage
necessary without resorting to conventional war and outright invasion.”

“Ukraine is a case study not in pioneering new nonlinear approaches
but in the failure of hybrid warfare to deliver the desired political ends for
Russia,” note the study’s authors.

Today, the war in eastern Ukraine remains a
limited, conventional conflict. It’s a static, trench war, in which the two
camps take daily indirect-fire potshots at one another—and in which soldiers
and civilians continue to die. More than 13,000 Ukrainians have so far died due
to the conflict.

With Europe’s two largest standing
land armies still exchanging daily fire along the trench lines in the Donbas,
there’s always the chance of an unanticipated event—a so-called Franz Ferdinand
scenario—setting off an escalatory domino chain that leads to a far deadlier
cataclysm. 

Case in point—a November 2018 naval clash between
Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea nearly precipitated a bigger war.

Outside the Donbas war zone, Russia continues to use hybrid war
tactics across all of Ukraine. Consequently, there’s hardly any part of
Ukrainian life that hasn’t been affected. 

Russian cyberattacks have hit Ukraine’s power grid, water supply
systems, the country’s banking system (shutting down ATMs), its largest
international airport, and the electoral process. 

For years Ukrainian soldiers have reported receiving threats and
demands for their surrender from their Russian enemies over cellphone text
messages. 

Russian drones have destroyed Ukrainian weapons depots, and
Russian operatives have waged a clandestine assassination pogrom across
Ukraine, targeting key Ukrainian security personnel and Russian
turncoats. 

Misjudgment

By using hybrid warfare tactics, contemporary
Russian military planners are targeting the Achilles’ heel of any democratic
adversary—public opinion.

The concept of “escalation dominance” was a key tenet of NATO’s
nuclear deterrence strategy against the Soviet Union. In theory, U.S. military
superiority would inherently deter the Soviet Union from going to war. 

The problem with the concept of escalation dominance, however, is
that American public opinion could turn against a conflict well before the
military has fully tapped its capacity for inflicting violence. 

Without public support, America’s material advantages aren’t
enough to compel an adversary to give up without a fight.

Public opinion is “generally a weakness of any democracy,” said
Vasyl Myroshnychenko, director of the Kyiv-based Ukraine Crisis Media Center.
“And once an adverse power learns how to affect public opinion, it has the
upper hand,” Myroshnychenko said.

Yet, hybrid warfare is not a one-size-fits-all formula. Rather,
the Kremlin tailors its hybrid warfare tactics according to each adversary’s
weaknesses.

“Russia’s gray zone tactics are most effective when the target is
deeply polarized or lacks the capacity to resist and respond effectively to
Russian aggression,” writes Czerewko of the
Joint Staff in the recent Pentagon study on Russia.

Gray zone activities aren’t necessarily anything new, either, in
terms of the history of warfare. Although it is significant to note, many
experts say, that hybrid warfare is becoming the go-to strategy for America’s
up and coming crop of adversaries.

For authoritarian regimes like those in Russia, Iran, and
China—which lean on nationalism to retain their hold on power—hybrid warfare
tactics offer a way to ceremonially push back against America for domestic
consumption while tiptoeing around a conventional war.

“Antics like those we’ve seen from Iran in recent weeks, and which
we continue to see from Russia and China, are those of weak governments eager
to demonstrate their international importance and by extension bolster their
domestic legitimacy,” said Gadzala, the Atlantic Council fellow.

In some respects, the old paradigms of the justice of war—which
include time-honored metrics, such as the proportionality of the use of deadly
force—are being challenged in this era of hybrid warfare. 

For instance, at what point does a cyberattack merit a lethal
military response? Or, is it ethically defensible to launch lethal airstrikes
in retaliation for an attack on a surveillance drone?

Compounding these ethical dilemmas, hybrid warfare is inherently
designed to create battlefield confusion, primarily in the command and control
process, clouding the situational awareness of both personnel in combat and
their commanders controlling the war effort from afar. For Western militaries,
which prefer precision strikes with minimum risk of collateral damage, that
kind of confusion can be paralyzing. 

However, Russian and Iranian leaders are playing with fire,
experts warn. 

In practice, the utility of hybrid warfare hinges on a country’s
ability to accurately judge an adversary’s tolerance for gray zone
provocations. That’s not necessarily easy to do—especially since the U.S. and
its allies have not yet created their own rules on when nonlethal gray zone
activities merit a lethal military response.

“The discrepancy between the Russian and the U.S. understanding of
‘conflict’ and ‘war’ will continue to grow, leading to a higher risk of
escalation in future situations involving both nations,” notes the Pentagon
study. 

“It is imperative that the U.S. establishes a consensus definition
of ‘gray zone’ and reevaluates old paradigms defining war and peace, as we
enter a new era of international politics which is defined by shades of gray,”
the study continued. 

In its attack on the U.S. drone, Iran misread Trump’s red line and
the two countries went to the absolute brink of war. For its part, Moscow’s
gross misjudgment of Ukrainians’ resolve to fight in 2014 proved to be a fatal
error for Russia’s hybrid war plan in the Donbas.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, analysts say. If Russia,
purposefully or not, oversteps America’s red line for tolerating gray zone
aggression—it could spark a nuclear war. And Iran’s brinkmanship campaign
against U.S. interests in the Middle East is hovering on the razor’s edge of
igniting a regional war.

Analysts also warn that Iran’s use of proxy
forces is a major concern. One lesson from Russia’s operation in eastern
Ukraine is how erratic those proxy forces can be—and how a rogue element could
spark an unplanned escalation. 

Accordingly, U.S. officials have made their
position crystal clear, repeatedly warning Iran that an attack by one of its
proxy forces would not go unpunished.

“If Iran organizes, trains, and equips and provides targeting
assistance for an operation and does everything except pull the trigger, they
are responsible for that operation,” Brian Hook, U.S. special representative
for Iran, told reporters during a telephonic press briefing on June 24. 

“We do not make a distinction between Iran’s government and the
proxies that it supports with lethal assistance and training and funding,” Hook
said.

The post Iran Is Using Russian ‘Gray Zone’ Tactics, in Echoes of Ukraine War appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The post Cartoon: Democrats Driving Left appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Taxpayers from all 50 states pay into the Highway Trust
Fund when they fill their tanks with gas or diesel fuel.

That sends billions of dollars a year to Washington, which
then cuts checks to state governments in the form of infrastructure grants
overseen by federal bureaucrats.

It’s hard to tell just what shuffling so much money from
one level of government to another is supposed to accomplish. In point of fact,
the system creates many speed bumps that prevent our highway system from
delivering the value it ought to.

A Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on
Wednesday provided few reasons to justify continuing down the current road.

The subject of the hearing was legislation to
reauthorize the federal surface transportation system, which the committee chairman,
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., is hoping to unveil
before Congress’ August recess.

Senators and the panelists acknowledged several problems
with the Highway Trust Fund.

First, the fund is running an annual deficit and will be depleted in the next two years, which will require bringing taxes and spending into alignment. That would be an improvement from the 2015 highway bill, which added $70 billion to the national debt by transferring money from the general fund.

Second, the prospect of simply extending the current law
for short periods would be counterproductive. As Barrasso noted,
that would “undermine our states’ ability to plan” infrastructure projects.

While that statement is accurate, it also points to one
of the problems with today’s bloated federal government; namely, that states
have become dependent on Washington for the provision of many basic services.

Considering the regularity of gridlock in Congress,
expanding the federal government’s role seems foolhardy. If we’re counting on
the House and the Senate for road maintenance, that could lead to a bumpy ride
for everyone.

Barrasso then extolled the virtues of formula funding,
which distributes 90% of Highway Trust Fund dollars to the states. He mentioned
that the formula method “gives each state the flexibility they need” and
“expedites the delivery of highway infrastructure spending.”

That’s true when compared with the previous system,
which concentrated spending decisions in the federal Department of
Transportation. Yet it’s not remotely true when compared with a system where
states kept more of their own money in the first place.

Federal involvement necessarily reduces flexibility and
speed, when compared with full state-level control.

In a positive sign for the upcoming legislation,
Barrasso said that the bill will “speed project delivery through streamlining”
by cutting “red tape.” That would be a win for taxpayers, since misguided
regulations cost the nation billions
of dollars in highway value every year.

However, that also points to another reason for reducing
the federal role. If money stays with the state to begin with, the federal
government will never get a chance to cover those funds in red tape.

The hearing featured extensive discussion of how to pay
for the nation’s highways. The most frequently cited position was that users
should pay for the roads. Yet there is disagreement regarding what “user pays”
should actually look like.

Transportation advocates commonly promote an increase in
the federal gas tax. While the federal tax has not increased since 1993, that does
not mean motorists are getting a discount.

First, state gas taxes have climbed steadily over the past few decades. Second, 28% of Highway Trust Fund spending is diverted away from roads and bridges, instead going toward mass transit, bike paths, and ferry terminals. Third, the increasing use of hybrid and electric vehicles makes reliance on the gas tax a worse proposition with each passing year.

The most straightforward way for users of the interstate
system to pay for their activity would be through tolling. However, with the
exception of grandfathered-in highways, states are unable to
toll interstates.

That restriction takes freedom away from states and removes a promising option for local road funding. Tolling would not only allow states to maintain and improve the nation’s most heavily used roads, but it would also provide an avenue for private-sector involvement.

The current system of using federal taxes to raise funds
for grants to states primarily generates benefits for politicians, leaving
taxpayers with the bill. State officials receive funds that are taxed at the
federal level, and federal officials get to tout any benefits from the
spending.

Elected officials should put the public good ahead of political
concerns by reducing federal highway taxes and spending, and allowing state
governments to take on a greater role. That would improve the value of highway
spending by making projects faster, more efficient, and less dependent on
Capitol Hill.

The post Why Federal Highway Policy Is a Speed Bump Slowing Down Better Roads appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump, during a free-wheeling speech Thursday, said he would be bringing top social media executives to the White House to push them to stop censoring conservatives and try to ensure free speech for everyone’s opinion. 

“On behalf of the nation, it’s very important what you’re doing,” Trump said.

He praised them for going around the media “gatekeepers” and “getting the honest word out.” 

Trump spoke in the East Room to digital media journalists, commentators, talk show hosts, and activists.

In calling for the giant social media platforms to be more transparent, Trump talked about how his own tweets seem to have been diminished by Twitter.

“It goes up and then they take it down,” Trump said. 

“It was like a rocket ship when I put out a beauty,” he said. “Remember when I said someone was spying on me? I turned out to be right.” 

Among attendees were Daily Signal Executive Editor Robert Bluey and Maria Sousa, the digital director for The Heritage Foundation. 

Bluey, also the vice president of communications for The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement, “attendees at the summit have half a billion social media followers and are reaching people directly without a media filter,” and that is “why their concerns about the implications of bias and censorship are so important.”

“Heavy-handed government regulation is not the answer,” Bluey added. “Everyone who cares about free speech, regardless of their political beliefs, should want social media companies to be responsive to their users, not government. There’s evidence the market is working and social media companies are responding.”

Also in attendance were YouTube personalities Diamond and Silk, who the president invited to the stage to hug.

Lila Rose of the pro-life investigative group Live Action was also in attendance and talked about how some of her group’s videos were banned from social media sites.

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk and Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe were also present.

Former Trump White House aide Sebastian Gorka was also in the crowd and came to a later Rose Garden event with the group of conservative media. Gorka got into an exchange with one reporter in the Rose Garden after the event. 

Trump referred to “stone cold crazy MSNBC,” speaking of the liberal cable network that has numerous programs critical of him. He also made familiar references to the “fake news.”

“I don’t think the mainstream media is free speech either,” Trump said. “To me, that’s dangerous speech.”

Trump talked about his July Fourth speech under the rain and joked, “They learned it was my real hair.”

The post Trump to Lean on Social Media Giants to Curb Censorship appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Fending off calls for his resignation or firing, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta on Wednesday defended his role as a federal prosecutor in Florida more than a decade ago in what is widely viewed as a plea deal with billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that resulted in a lenient sentence. 

He said a federal trial would have been “a roll of the dice,” with no guarantee of a more severe punishment, and put most of the blame on the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office.

“The goal here was straightforward: Put Epstein behind bars, ensure he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with the means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was in their midst,” Acosta said at a press conference Wednesday. 

Acosta was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2008, when the plea agreement was reached. 

On Monday, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York charged Epstein, 66, with the sex trafficking of dozens of young girls, some as young as 14 years old. 

During Wednesday’s nearly hourlong press conference, Acosta dodged questions as to whether he would apologize to the victims for the handling of the case.

Rather, Acosta expressed sympathy for the victims and called for them to come forward. He defended the actions of federal career prosecutors in his office at the time, but he ridiculed the actions of state prosecutors who he said made an “absolutely awful” deal with Epstein that required federal intervention.  

“It was complicated by the fact that this matter started as a state investigation. A state grand jury brought a single, completely unacceptable charge,” he said. “A state official allowed Epstein to self-surrender. It is unusual for a federal prosecutor to intervene in a state matter.”

Acosta stressed that times have changed, expressing the view that it’s difficult to judge the circumstances and facts of a case from the past through today’s lens.  

“Today, we know a lot more about how victim trauma impacts their testimony. And this, too, is important,” Acosta said. “Our juries are more accepting of contradictory statements, understanding that trauma-impacted memories work differently. And today, judges do not allow victim-shaming by defense attorneys.”

In 2008, Epstein reached a deal with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, run by Acosta at the time, that allowed the financier to avoid federal prosecution in a case involving multiple charges of sexual abuse, in exchange for pleading guilty in a Florida state court to charges of procuring a minor for prostitution and felony solicitation. 

He was placed on the sex offender registry and served just 13 months in county jail, despite an agreement on an 18-month sentence. Epstein was allowed to leave the lockup daily for work-release.

“The expectation was that it would be an 18-month sentence, and the expectation was that it would be served in jail. So, this work-release was complete B.S.,” Acosta said. “I’ve been on record as far back as 2011 saying it was not what was bargained for and was not what we expected. But, this was a state court plea. Because it was a state court plea, the terms of confinement were under the jurisdiction of the state of Florida.”  

Some of Epstein’s victims have come forward to say prosecutors didn’t listen to them.

“Epstein’s actions absolutely deserve a stiffer sentence,” Acosta said.

Acosta added, “If there are other states that can bring state charges, they should consider those as well. So, I absolutely welcome this New York prosecution.”

He added that Epstein is “a bad man and needs to be put away.”

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have called for Acosta to resign as secretary of labor or be fired by the president. 

Reporters asked Acosta about his future at the Labor Department, amid reports and rumors that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wants him out. 

“I keep reading articles about me and Mr. Mulvaney,” Acosta said. “He called me this morning to say, if asked, that our relationship is excellent, too, and that any articles to the contrary are, in his words, ‘B.S.’”

Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump defended Acosta.

“He has been a great, really great secretary of labor,” the president said.  “The rest of it, we’ll have to look at. We’ll have to look at it very carefully. You’re talking about a long time ago. It was a decision made, I think, not by him, but by a lot of people.”

The secretary said his relationship with President Donald Trump is “outstanding,” but acknowledged it’s up to the president whether he remains in the Cabinet.

“If at some point the president decides that I am not the best person to do this job, I respect that,” Acosta said. “That is his choice. I serve at the pleasure of the president.”

The post Acosta Defends Role in Epstein Deal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Today, U.S. Representative Bill Flores (R-Texas) announced the details of his upcoming Summer Town Hall Events.

On July 16th and 24th Congressman Flores will host town hall events to discuss the work being done in Congress, answer constituent questions and get feedback on various issues. These events will be conducted over the phone along with an available live video broadcast on the Congressman’s website (Flores.house.gov/liveforum) and on his Facebook page.

Each town hall event will target a different region within the 17th Congressional District. Participants will be able to ask the Congressman questions through the caller queue and through the comments section of the video feed. Residents of the 17th Congressional District can sign up to be added to the call list by visiting Flores.House.gov.

Town Hall Events:

Northern Counties (Falls, Freestone, Leon, Limestone, McLennan, Milam and Robertson)
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
6:40 PM – 7:40 PM
Call-in number: 1-877-229-8493  Access code: 111954

Southern Counties (Bastrop, Brazos, Burleson, Lee and Travis)
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
6:40 PM – 7:40 PM
Call-in number: 1-877-229-8493  Access code: 111954

**Dates and times subject to change given the fluidity of the House floor schedule.

 

###

Last month, I submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of twin 9-year-olds who had been separated from their dad, Frank.

Frank is gay. He lived in New York with his partner, Joseph, for four years. During that time, Frank had twin children conceived through in vitro fertilization, and Joseph’s sister carried them to term. 

While Joseph’s sister is the biological mother, she never wanted a parental relationship with the children and surrendered her parental rights after the children were born. Frank is their biological father and was their primary caregiver and only legal parent until the twins were almost 7 years old.

The problem arose three years after Frank and Joseph separated. A court chose to remove the kids from Frank and give them to Joseph, even though he is not the biological father and had no legal relationship to the kids.

How could that happen, you ask?

It all stems from a court case that has redefined what it means to be a parent.  

In 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals expanded the definition of parenthood in a case involving two gay partners.

The court ruled that a partner who has no biological or legal relationship with a child can, nonetheless, sue for custody or visitation rights if he or she clearly demonstrated an “intent to parent” when the child was conceived.

In other words, biology and legal status are no longer necessary factors in becoming a “parent.” Neither does an adult need to undergo the vetting and screening of an adoption process. All you need is to show that you intended to co-parent a child at the time he or she was conceived.

What’s telling is the way the court reached this conclusion: It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which redefined marriage as based on mere consent between adults, regardless of sex and the needs of children.

The New York court reasoned that if marriage is no longer based on the needs of children, then neither is the definition of “parent.”

Fast forward to Frank’s case. 

Joseph was not a parent by biology or adoption, which historically were the only two legal criteria for parenthood in New York. So under those standards, Frank was the children’s only parent. Frank decided to move to Florida with his kids in 2014.

Two years later, New York courts began applying the new, expanded definition of parenthood. That’s when Joseph and the biological mother sued Frank for “taking” the kids to Florida, claiming that Joseph was entitled to equal parental rights because he intended to parent at the time of their birth.

The court bought their argument. It subsequently penalized Frank and removed the kids from his custody and deemed Joseph the sole custodian of the children.

The court reasoned that Frank was “unfit to be the custodial parent” for taking his own kids to Florida—something he was legally allowed to do up until the 2016 ruling that expanded the definition of parenthood.  

When all was said and done, the very redefinition of parenthood that was intended to benefit the gay community was used to strip a gay man of his own children.

Why This Notion of Parenthood Is Flawed

The root problem with New York’s expanded notion of parenthood is that it grounds parenthood in the consent of adults, not in the natural rights of children. 

As noted above, this flows from the Supreme Court’s logic in Obergefell, which sees marriage as a vehicle for adult fulfillment that has nothing to do with the natural rights of children. 

This was a departure from the traditional idea that marriage is rooted in male-female complementarity and the unique benefits such a relationship offers children.

Of course, gay and straight couples can both love one another and share a mutual commitment to each other. That’s not in question here. What’s at issue is that there is a stark, undeniable difference between what gay and straight couples offer children.

Consider the unique benefits kids get when raised by their married, opposite sex-parents. They get to enjoy a daily relationship with the two people they are biologically related to.

Statistically, their parents are the most likely to be attached to, protective of, and invested in them.

They receive the distinct, complementary kinds of love that issue from a man and woman, which benefit the child’s development. And, the opposite-sex couple grants children something that they crave: their biological identity.  

Things are different for kids in same-sex-headed households. No matter how loving the two adults are, they will be raised at best by only one biological parent, and sometimes by no biological parent. They will likely suffer mother-hunger or father-hunger, and when they look in the mirror they will wonder who gave them their unique eyes, nose, mouth, and hair.

The children are not getting equal treatment in these two kinds of households. But the new definition of parenthood isn’t interested in what kids need.

In the name of nondiscrimination, courts like the one in New York are only interested in what adults have access to. New York law now demands that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, which are not equally ideal for kids, be treated equally in matters of parenthood. Other states have taken a similar path.

Frank’s Plea

Frank is obviously not part of an opposite-sex couple, but clearly, he still has a natural and legal right to raise his own children. That right has been violated, and he’s now taking his case to the Supreme Court. 

But there’s another right that the justices should consider, one even more foundational to this case: the right of Frank’s children, and every child, to be known and loved by their biological parents whenever possible. 

Frank’s children cannot file their own petition nor lodge an appeal. Yet they are the most important party in this legal triad between the state, the adults, and themselves. It was on their behalf that my nonprofit, Them Before Us, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court last week. 

I’ve never met Frank’s kids. I’ve never even had a conversation with them. But I can hazard an educated guess at what they’d say about this case because I am steeped in the research on family structure. 

I participate in Facebook groups where adoptees and donor-conceived children are seeking out their lost parents. I have recorded the stories of now-grown children who were raised in similar situations—those whose parents broke up, who were conceived via a sperm or egg donor, and who have LGBT parents.  

If Frank’s 9-year-old twins could speak to the nine justices of the Supreme Court, they wouldn’t lay out a compelling legal argument (though we make one in our brief). They wouldn’t reference authorities on family structure (though we cite them in our brief). And they may not know other children who have suffered in the same way they have (though we quote them in our brief). 

They would simply say, “Our dad matters to us in a way that no one else does. We need him and we miss him and we want him.”

What will happen if the Supreme Court takes this case, rules against Frank, and “intent to parent” becomes an acceptable basis for parenthood across the land?  

First, parental rights will be threatened as the state will gain power to override the claims of parents to their children. Second, and even more terrifying, children will be considered commodities to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to acquire them—their rights, identity, and safety be damned.  

It’s my hope that the Supreme Court will see the error of this new definition of parenthood and prioritize the rights of children over the “intent” of adults.

The post This Gay Dad Lost Custody of His Own Kids. His Case Matters for All Children. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 9, 2019

CONTACT:
Sam Pohl, gro.P1563355749OGsax1563355749eT@ss1563355749erp1563355749

The Republican Party of Texas Mourns the Passing of Ross Perot

DALLAS, TX – Former candidate for President and notable philanthropist, Ross Perot, passed away today after a short battle with leukemia. Perot was 89 years old. Republican Party of Texas Chairman James Dickey commented:

“The Republican Party of Texas joins those today mourning the passing of fellow Texan, Ross Perot. Ross Perot’s business success was a testament to what is possible in America and his dedication to philanthropy is an extraordinary example of compassion for our fellow man. His was a life of service to our troops, his community in Dallas, and those in need. His legacy lives on through his personal and professional work, his family, the Natural History Museum in Dallas and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center among countless other endeavors. He will always be remembered for his tenacious and unrelenting drive and passion. We extend our sincere condolences to his family.”

###

The post The Republican Party of Texas Mourns the Passing of Ross Perot appeared first on Republican Party of Texas.