Something Troubling

Are there no leaders with the nation’s best interests at heart?

by Vincent McCaffrey for American Greatness

With all the crises that beset us, why must we continue to relitigate questions answered so many times before? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is not optional. This is not discretionary. This is not an opinion. There is precious little to debate or revise. This is not something that can be put on hold due to sickness or death, any more than we might interrupt gravity and levitate by wishing for it. This is not a theory. These foundational laws of our social physics are just as straightforward as gravity, or Newton’s laws of motion. 

Why is this being debated?  

Without those axioms, we are adrift in a sea of troubles. We are not worthy of any special consideration. We are no better than the next poor excuses for government to the north and the south of us. We are merely treading water before the maelstrom.

Doesn’t the very act of debating such principles at this stage in the game seem analogous to that of the man at a society ball who gets a beautiful women to consider sleeping with him for a million dollars yet, when that same woman is asked if she might do it for $10, she protests, “What do you think I am?” 

The man answers “I think we have established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.” Any compromise on these first principles is an opening to bad consequences.

Practical considerations such as dealing with a pandemic, or whether we should use atomic weapons are best dealt with by open debate. Period. This is where freedom of the press and of speech and assembly are most crucial. That is what we elected Congress to do. How is it we find ourselves at odds with that? 

If we are attacked, as we were at Pearl Harbor, we must strike back and defend ourselves to the fullest. Even Roosevelt, a progressive socialist understood that much. We may have been provocative before the attack, but certainly not on the scale of our open aid to the despotic regime in the Ukraine. Is there any doubt that supplying missiles to a petty tyrant like Zelenskyy will provoke the equally small-minded Putin to react? Didn’t Russia try this with us in Cuba some years ago? A war is being manufactured for dubious purposes by our own oligarchy of illiberal tyrants, when such a declaration of war can only be made by Congress. Is this in question? 

A nation has borders. Without them, it is a fiction. Can we long survive this invasion? Who pays for the social services of a government that oversees the welfare of anyone who decides to come?

We now have pretend elections. Send in your ballots, please. Vote early and vote often. But not to worry. The outcome will be decided for you.

Our currency is debased by inflation. A digital economy is being arranged by actors in a World Economic Forum according to their own special interests. What sort of nation are we if we cannot control our income and debt?

Tucker Carlson appeared on Tulsi Gabbard’s show recently and in the course of discussing one aspect of our current collapse, the infiltration of Twitter and social media by the FBI and other spy organizations, he lost it and used foul language while discussing this degradation of our freedoms by our own government. Evidently, this behavior was unacceptable by many, even though Tucker was himself a victim of this chicanery. My own opinion of Tucker, already high, soared. And I am not the only one who has been wondering, “Where’s the outrage?” 

When are the sitting members of Congress who have any common sense going to rise up en masse and say, “No more!” Were they elected to negotiate away our liberty or to protect it? Does their oath to the Constitution mean anything, or is it merely a formality?

The game is afoot, and we need a hand. Are there no leaders with the nation’s best interests at heart?

X22, And we Know, and more- December 16

 

I'm glad this is the last weekend for new Christmas movies (except for UP TV). I'm starting to get a little burned out. Oh, and I'll have a review of GAF's new lineup after Sunday's new movie airs.

Here's tonight's news:

The Democrats’ ‘America First’ Policy

Due to the Democrats’ woke ideology, democracy is not only in retreat across the globe, but also here at home.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

Without evidence, the Democrats believe they are far more intelligent and sophisticated than the rest of the citizenry. If one dissents from the Democrats’ ideology or policies, one is quickly deemed a lowbrow Neanderthal incapable of understanding their “nuanced” positions. Worse, one is branded a social miscreant with sundry epithets ending in “-ist” and/or “-phobic.” The irony of this knee jerk resort to ad hominem attacks belies their airs to intellectual and moral superiority. 

Yet, the consequences of the Democrats’ ignorance, hubris, hypocrisy, and callous cupidity are far more extensive and damaging than a mere irritant.

Often, Joe Biden and his administration assert how across the globe democracy is in retreat. Although Biden has a penchant for emphasizing the most dire outcome, however fanciful, to mask his own abysmal performance, let us stipulate to his assessment that freedom is receding across the globe. 

Unfortunately for Biden and his handlers, our stipulation that democracy is under siege throughout the world only serves to highlight their disgraceful conduct.

This year, the captive peoples of three dictatorships rose up to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. In these three barbaric regimes, the Democrats’ ideology and policies, far from helping these peoples to breathe free and curb the advance of “autocracy,” have contrarily helped these tyrants to stifle their oppressed peoples’ courageous struggles for freedom.

While the people of Cuba rose against the communist regime enslaving them, the Biden Administration took a “nuanced” view; preached patience; issued platitudes; and excused and indulged the regime.

While the people of Iran rose against the terrorist regime butchering them, the Biden Administration, like the Obama Administration before it, took a “nuanced” view; preached patience; issued platitudes; and excused and indulged the regime.

While the people of China rose against the communist regime tyrannizing and committing genocide against them, the Biden Administration took a “nuanced” view; preached patience; issued platitudes; and excused and indulged the regime.

Yet, there is one nation where the Democrats’ do not choose to take a nuanced view. One, they allege, is a systemically racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and colonizing nation filled with domestic terrorists and Nazis. One that is beyond redemption and requiring a fundamental transformation to “renew” its democracy. True, the Democrats do indulge this nation’s repressive regime, too, which makes sense because they run it. Can you guess this nation’s name?

This is the Democrats’ version of “America First.” Evidently, the Biden Administration must destroy our free republic to save it; transmogrifying it into a fascist regime stifling all dissenters to cement one party rule in order to . . . renew democracy? 

History has proven the dangers of the Democrats’ proposition; but hubris combined with cognitive dissonance proves a powerful malady. Every autocratic, totalitarian, and murderous regime has commenced by promising “liberation” and delivering repression—and worse. Such regimes claim they must strip citizens of rights, usually starting by imposing censorship; and jail dissidents to secure “equality” amongst the populace and national “stability.” Ultimately, when these hideous regimes’ repression fails to produce their desired results, their concentration camps and killing fields fill with their victims, murdered for yearning to be free.

For many of these victims, the United States was a beacon of freedom, and a source of hope. But to the American Left, the United States is the antithesis of their woke secular religion and, ergo, the font of global inhumanity. It must be stanched and transformed to spur a recrudescence of democracy. Again, this is the antithesis of reality. Nonetheless, Democrats stubbornly aver their less than nuanced “America First” policy is the sole path to advance “democracy.” Sure, it is—for those who define “democracy” like they do in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

No, in this case, there is evidence and it is clear: Due to the Democrats’ woke ideology, democracy is not only in retreat across the globe, but also here at home.

Biden Administration Makes (Yet) Another Blunder With Our Military

posted by Jared Whitley at Townhall

For America to be a source for good in the world, it has to stay great, and it can’t stay great if the people in charge don’t act smart. 

The relative stability the Earth has enjoyed for the last 80 years is thanks to the power and benevolence of the American military. Just the merits of our Navy alone – large enough to defeat every other navy on the planet combined – has kept the waterways safe for international trade to blossom in ways that have enriched everyone. As Robert Kaplan wrote, the “undeniable fact of American power” has “protected the sea-lanes, the maritime choke points, and access to hydrocarbons, and in general provided some measure of security to the world.” 

Or as even the Somalian pirate said in Captain Phillips, “Navy good. They protect us.”

But is even the US military strong enough to survive the Biden Administration? 

The current administration and a larger than should be constituency in Congress are hellbent on making our military as weak as possible. Our two greatest global adversaries getting bolder – as evident by Russia invading Ukraine and China sharpening their knives over Taiwan. While both are horrible for the people in question, the latter would be devastating for everyone as Taiwan produces two-thirds of the world’s semiconductors. 

And in trying to address that last fact, the Biden Administration and Congress are undermining our national defense even more. 

Snuck into the negotiated final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – section 802 in the House version and section 822 of the Senate’s – it would require commercial suppliers to the military to disclosure proprietary information about material sourcing and prices, which will force them to either violate their partnership agreements or risk false claim act penalties. 

When defense companies apply for contracts, they need to prove they can fulfill the military’s requirements within a proscribed budget. But if the government demands companies disclose privileged information about their supply chain, pricing model, and other logistics, they expose their business model to competitors. Going forward with this will push some companies out of the defense space, or even risk leaking technical information that should be kept secret. 

When so much about the Arleigh Burke destroyer accessible on Wikipedia, perhaps it shouldn’t be even easier for our enemies to learn how our tech works? 

The compromise NDAA took a step in the right direction by giving the Pentagon discretion on when disclosures are required. The unfortunate consequence is that the way these requirements are enforced will then fluctuate with changing political winds – making the procurement process even more onerous than it already is. Increased disclosure demands would also restrict the entry of new commercial innovators – who would be less inclined to work with the government if their competitive information were made public for their other commercial competitors to see. 

Startups are important for fresh ideas, but they’re leaving the space: small businesses receiving DOD awards decreased by 43 percent from 2011 to 2020, according to a recent GAO report. Let’s not push even more of them out of the industry. 

At very worst, if the Federal government makes life too difficult for defense companies to do business, they will find work with other countries that do not. Chasing this entire industry away is even more troublesome than the problem of our offshored microchip production. 

For the current Administration to continue undermining the military is neither good, great, nor smart. Who else will keep the sea-lanes safe for everyone, even Somalian pirates? 

Why The Redefinition Of The Word ‘Woman’ Matters

Ideas corrupt language and language corrupts thought.

by David Harsanyi for The Federalist

Samuel Johnson’s “Dictionary of the English Language,” first published in 1755, defines the word “woman” as, “The female of the human race.” And until October of 2022, the word “woman” was still defined as, “An adult female human being” in the Cambridge Dictionary. What transpired on the topic during the intervening 267 years? Not much. Science confirmed what men and women have known since Adam and Eve began talking past each other — not only do the sexes have immutable physiological differences, down to their genetic matter, but they observe, act, and think differently as well.

Yet Cambridge now says the definition of woman is, “An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth” (and the definition of a “man” is someone who “identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”) How does one use “woman” in a sentence? One of Cambridge’s examples is, “Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.” Who assigned Mary’s sex? Her parents? God? Evolution? The SRY gene? And what other human characteristics does Cambridge believe can be altered according to one’s feelings? Lexicographers have a responsibility to offer clarity and accuracy — which is, of course, impossible in this case.

When asked about the change, Sophie White, a spokeswoman from Cambridge University Press, told The Washington Post that the editors had “carefully studied usage patterns of the word woman and concluded that this definition is one that learners of English should be aware of to support their understanding of how the language is used.” This is tautological gibberish. Though, in fairness to White, “Wokeish” is a relatively new language.

The Post, for instance, claims Cambridge updated its definitions for “woman” and “man” “to include transgender people.” (Incredulous italics mine.) This also makes zero sense. If Cambridge changed the definition of “black” or “Caucasian” to incorporate “Asian people,” it would not be including a new group, it would be altering the fundamental facts of what makes someone black or white or Asian. “Woman” is not a neologism. Our understanding of “woman” hasn’t been altered by new scientific discoveries. Nothing has changed.

As hard as I try, it is difficult not to bring up Orwell these days. In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell notes that the “struggle against the abuse of language” is often treated as a “sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes.” But how can we deny that ideas are corrupting language, and language is corrupting thought?

At first, these liturgic declarations of one’s “pronouns” seemed relatively harmless to me. And, not that it matters much, but I’ve been perfectly willing to refer to adults in whatever manner they desire. It’s a free country. Pursue your happiness. It’s not like gender-bending is some new idea. In my real-world experience, I find that most people try to be courteous.

It’s one thing to be considerate and another to be bullied into an alternative reality. But that’s where we are right now. Placating the mob has led to the rise in dangerous euphemisms like “gender-affirming care,” a phrase that means the exact opposite of what it claims. In today’s world, “gender-affirming therapy” means telling a girl she can be transformed into a boy, but “conversion therapy” means telling a girl she’s a girl. The corruption of reality has led to the rise of a pseudoscientific cult that performs irreparable mutilation on kids, with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and life-altering surgeries.

And in their never-ending campaign to smear political opponents, Democrats have latched onto this idea as if it were a universal truth. If a person contends that gender is an unalterable feature of human life these days — a belief shared by all of civilization until about five minutes ago — they might as well be Bull Connor holding a firehose. Only this week, after signing the same-sex marriage bill, our octogenarian president claimed:

We need to challenge the hundreds of callous and cynical laws introduced in the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families and criminalizing doctors who give children the care they need. And we have to protect these children so they know they are loved and that we will stand up for them and so they can seek for themselves.

Speaking of cynical. Does the president really believe these troubled teenagers “need” mastectomies, facial surgery, and genital removal to feel loved? Or would it be more prudent to let them wait for adulthood to make life-altering surgical decisions? Has anyone ever asked him? Biden is, of course, right that Americans should be free from threats of violence. That includes kids who are now subjected to abuse at the hands of people who have adopted this trendy quackery.

I simply refuse to accept that most Americans, or even more than a small percentage, believe children should be empowered to “choose” their sex. Rather, in their well-intentioned effort to embrace inclusivity — and avoid being called bigots — they’ve allowed extremists to, among many other things, circumvent debate by corroding fundamental truths about the world. And that’s what these dictionaries — once a place we collectively went for definitions and etymologies — have shamefully helped them do.

The CDC Removed 'Defensive Gun Use' Data at the Request of Gun Control Advocates

Jim Thompson reporting for RedState 

The CDC came into prominence in 2020 when a little man with a big ego took to the national stage. He took to cameras like a mosquito to bare skin. He wasn’t part of the CDC, but rather an interconnected agency called the NIH. Fauci, as head of the NIAID (part of the NIH), and bureaucrats at the CDC quickly took turns giving advice about public policy rather than their designed mission which is public health.

The CDC came into being at the end of World War II. It started as the “Office of Malaria Control.” It was so effective at controlling malaria, the Federal Government created the “Communicable Disease Center,” later named the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It opened its offices in Atlanta and there it stayed.

According to the CDC:

CDC is the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health. For more than 70 years, we’ve put science into action to help children stay healthy so they can grow and learn; to help families, businesses, and communities fight disease and stay strong; and to protect the public’s health.

Notwithstanding having no lawful mandate or authority to dictate and demand things like rent moratoriums during a pandemic, the CDC did just that. During the past three years, the CDC has expanded its titular authority. Gun control advocacy appears to be another area that it has taken on, rather than just reporting data. And, to that end the CDC has apparently removed data to conform with gun control and gun grabbers, to influence public opinion.

The CDC has a dedicated webpage that discusses gun violence. About midpage it reads:

Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, other people, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. Given the wide variability in estimates, additional research is necessary to understand defensive gun use prevalence, frequency, circumstances, and outcomes.

A  study that indicated as many as 2.5 million defensive gun use (DGU) happen each year was removed.

According to an article in “The Reload,” published on Thursday, the CDC allowed gun control advocates to dictate policy, with the CDC removing the study from its website. The advocates had difficulty getting the CDC to meet with them until Dick Durbin’s office pressured the CDC to schedule a virtual meeting. During the meeting and later in emails to officials at the CDC, Mark Bryant of Gun Violence Archive (GVA), asserted that the study was “damaging to the political prospects of passing new gun restrictions and should be eliminated from the CDC’s website.”

Bryant emailed CDC officials later saying:

“[T]hat 2.5 Million number needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again,” “It is highly misleading, is used out of context and I honestly believe it has zero value – even as an outlier point in honest DGU discussions.”

A FOIA  production that The Reload reviewed showed some pushback from CDC officials. One was James Mercy. He wondered why differing studies would not be included, writing:

“I mean all we say on the fact sheet essentially is that you get different estimates of defensive gun use depending on the methods you use to measure it and then point to the National Academy report.”

According to The Reload, the FOIA production included a fair share of fully redacted pages but also contained some illuminating emails including a reference to  “plans to talk about potential changes “off-line.”  Was that to avoid a paper trail and create plausible deniability for both the gun control advocates and officials at the CDC?

CDC is, apparently willing to skew data to suit gun-control advocates. The adage of the “squeaky wheel” comes to mind.

Retail Sales Drop 0.6% in November

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Friends, in the late summer and fall of 2021 CTH warned of massive waves of price increases that would push inflation to record highs.  We watched as each wave arrived almost on schedule throughout 2022, and as a direct result of Joe Biden energy and economic policy, prices necessarily skyrocketed.

In essence in 2021 we were warning about the expenditure side of the ledger that all working-class and fixed income families would experience.  We advised to take every proactive measure possible to avoid future price increases.

Now, unfortunately, we begin moving those same warnings to the other side of the ledger; because as a natural consequence of consumer checkbook pain, the financial pressure always transfers to the income and employment side of the economic dynamic.

Keep in mind, retail sales are calculated in dollars spent by consumers.   November 2022 retail sales as reported by the commerce department today [DATA pdf], reflect a 0.6% decrease in spending vs October.  November data includes Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the traditional early holiday shopping.  0.6% less dollars were spent, despite prices being double digits higher than the prior year.

When the prices you are charging for goods and/or services are 10, 20, even as high as 60 percent more than prior year, yet your sales are running flat to negative – that means consumer purchases of those goods/services are substantially lower.

If you were selling 100 widgets for $1 each in 2021, you gross $100.   If your widgets now sell for $1.25 and you gross $94 in 2022 sales, you have sold 75 widgets.

In 2021 you sold 100 widgets, in 2022 you sold 75 widgets, a difference of 25 widgets.

Everything attached to the raw material, creation, manufacturing, distribution and sale of those 25 missing widgets is no longer part of the economic activity associated with your widget business.  You are now telling your suppliers you don’t need as many widgets, because they are not selling.  You have lost 25% of your business in this scenario.

Everything associated with the drop in consumer spending now begins to downsize.  Downsizing means less labor needed.  This process triggers the economic impact shifting from the consumer sales side of the ledger to the income side of the ledger for employers, employees and workers.

If this consumer spending trend continues, and there is absolutely no reason to think it will reverse, we are entering a phase of serious financial instability for the American worker, at a scale that will dwarf the 2006/’07 and ’08 recession.

I am not a doomsayer pundit on economic matters.  I am a proactive planner on economic forecasts.  With consumer credit costing more, with fed interest rates climbing, with import orders cancelled, with shipping costs dropping, with consumer spending contracting, with fewer units moving, with inventories climbing, all of the data only points in one direction.

Serious consumer defaults are looming.

Government policy has been hammering the demand side of the economy, proclaiming -falsely- that excessive consumer demand was the cause of inflation.  This game of economic pretending is about to get very serious.

Consumer spending, as measured in actual units created and purchased in the economy, has been contracting since the third quarter of 2021 (started June, July, August ’21). Simultaneously, consumer spending as measured in actual dollars spent to purchase food, fuel and energy, has been skyrocketing.   This is a supply side inflationary cycle with no soft landing.

(Wall Street Journal) – U.S. retail spending and manufacturing weakened in November, signs of a slowing economy as the Federal Reserve continues its battle against high inflation.

November retail sales fell 0.6% from the prior month for the biggest decline this year, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Budget-conscious shoppers pulled back sharply on holiday-related purchases, home projects and autos. Manufacturing output declined 0.6%, the first drop since June, the Fed said in a separate report.

The Fed on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate 0.5 percentage point to a 15-year high and signaled plans to continue lifting rates through the spring. Fed officials have increased rates at the fastest pace since the 1980s to cool the economy and bring down inflation, which is running near a 40-year high.

“Most households are acting strategically, planning for a road ahead that may be more difficult to traverse, with higher interest rates, the housing slump, and ongoing inflation—and the very real possibility of a recession,” said Craig Johnson, president of the retail consulting firm Customer Growth Partners. (read more)

Businesses are going to start cutting expenses in order to survive.

The number one expense for almost all businesses is the labor cost.

Non-essential and high wage labor is going to get removed first.

Despite Leaving the Democrat Party, Let's Be Honest: Kyrsten Sinema Is No Tulsi Gabbard

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

It continues to amuse me how presumably-conservative keyboard warriors latch onto — and sing the praises of — various Democrat “renegades,” including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona (the Democrat darling of the pseudo-right), who recently announced she was leaving the Democrat Party. The question is, Sinema might be “leaving,” but how far away is she going? 

So in an effort to get a few things on the record, mostly the reasons she left the Democrat Pary to register as an Independent, Sinema penned an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, in which she said, fundamentally:

Americans are told that we have only two choices — Democrat or Republican — and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have pulled further and further toward extremism.

The Arizonan correctly called the “two choices” option a “false choice.”

I know oodles of “Republicans” who claim the same — that neither party is right all the time or wrong all the time — yet write and talk completely the opposite. Why? Dunno, don’t care — but I do think it’s hypocritical.

In my view, principled objectivity matters, as long as it comports with constitutionally conservative views, and blatant hypocrisy on either side is inexcusable. Again, I know a whole lot of people who say they believe the same, yet more than a few whose words and actions simply don’t align with their claims.

And What of Sinema?

Sinema wrote at length about the “fringe elements” of both Democrats and Republicans, including:

Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened in recent years. Pressures in both parties pull leaders to the edges, allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to determine their respective parties’ priorities and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.

In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.

However, with Sinema’s announcement about leaving the Democrat Party, little in the mix is likely to change. She’s still expected to vote mostly with the Democrats and may only be strategically positioning herself for re-election in 2024. That’s not uncommon — particularly if a lawmaker believes he or she stands a chance of being primaried. But celebrating on the right as some sort of “victory” is naive.

Truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sinema was encouraged by Democrat House members who might also believe that running as an Independent instead of a Democrat in 2024 might make for a more successful Sinema re-election campaign.

Consider what Cal Thomas noted in a recent op-ed:

In a strong indication of the Democrats’ confidence in the vast majority of Sinema’s votes,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has said she’ll keep her committee assignments. A Wall Street Journal editorial notes that ‘Sinema voted for President Biden’s priorities some 90 percent of the time this Congress. Where her independence mattered in the last two years is preserving the Senate filibuster and opposing the worst elements of the Biden Build Back Better plan.’

So, while Sinema says both parties have extreme elements, she’ll likely continue to vote — 90 percent of the time or more — with the Democrats. New uniform, maybe, but running the same, old plays.

Tulsi Gabbard and the ‘Elitist Cabal’

In contrast, Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her departure from the Democrat Party in October, made no bones about her disgust with the party of Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and co. More than a year after retiring from the House in 2021, Gabbard attacked the party in a nearly 30-minute video posted to her YouTube account. While she didn’t announce plans to join the Republican Party or any other political affiliation, she did take it to the Democrat Party — strong:

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively working to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…

That’s how you leave the Democrat Party. That is, unless you’ve only left the Democrat label behind.

Still, as is the case with Manchin and Sinema, I don’t think we’ll be seeing Gabbard announce she’s a registered Republican anytime soon. Then again, we won’t see the Hawaiian caucusing with the Democrats, either. Anyway, sports fans, Kyrsten Sinema is no Tulsi Gabbard.

South Dakota State University Hosted A ‘Kid-Friendly’ Drag Show And Gov. Kristi Noem Is Doing Nothing About It

A drag show may be illegal under South Dakota’s ‘harmful to minors’ law, yet the governor has not taken any steps to rectify the situation.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso reporting for The Federalist

South Dakota State University hosted a “kid-friendly” drag show, on state property and in a taxpayer-funded building, that may be illegal under the state’s “harmful to minors” legislation, yet the state’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem has not taken any steps to rectify the situation.

Noem has failed to hold accountable the school’s governing body, the South Dakota Board of Regents, whose members Noem has the power to fire. Noem also has not called on the state’s attorney general to enforce South Dakota’s “harmful to minors” laws. Furthermore, it is a governor’s job to make policy suggestions for state lawmakers, yet she has failed to push for bills that would ensure children are protected from similar events in the future. 

At the Nov. 16 event, which was orchestrated by the Gender & Sexualities Alliance student group, student organizers encouraged attendees, which presumably included children, to “Show [their] support for the drag queens by bringing $1 or $5 bills to tip.” After backlash from locals, the student organizers, university president, and local ABC-affiliate newspaper jumped to defend the lewd performance. 

In a piece subtly defending the event, Dakota News Now reporter John Gaskins wrote that the event featured “age-appropriate attire, music, and behavior.” His source? One of the drag queens. 

A South Dakota State University student, who attended the “kid-friendly” drag performance and wishes to remain anonymous, told The Federalist the show was anything but child appropriate. “[The drag queens] were twerking and then also shaking their chests at people,” the student said. 

Devin Basart, one of the drag queen performers who goes by the stage name “Devondra Shakers,” claimed in the local paper that he and the other performers are “educating children to love who you are.” However, The Federalist’s student source said “there wasn’t anything educational at all about the drag show.”

University President Barry Dunn deflected criticisms over the event by pointing out that the performance was sponsored by the Gender & Sexualities Alliance student group, not the university, and that students have a right to host any kind of event they chose. 

While it’s true student groups can host a drag show, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have a right to host a drag show for minors. According to Steve Haugaard, a current South Dakota legislator and former speaker of the state House of Representatives, there’s a case to be made that the “kid-friendly” drag show is illegal. 

Under South Dakota law, a “show or other presentation which depicts nudity [or] sexual conduct” are deemed “harmful to minors,” and it is illegal to “sell[] or give[] to a minor an admission ticket” for such a performance. Drag shows are arguably, by their nature, prurient, meaning excessively sexual and deviant, and the South Dakota legislature considers prurient material and displays “harmful to minors.” 

The Federalist reached out to Dunn to ask whether he believes the university should be hosting sexually inappropriate performances for minors on university property but did not hear back. 

There’s already some precedent for labeling drag shows prurient and therefore inappropriate for children. Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson introduced legislation that would place drag shows in the same category as topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and strippers and would prohibit drag performers from hosting shows on public property that are either child-accessible or aimed directly at kids. Similar legislation has been drafted, introduced, or passed in Florida, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Idaho, and Montana. While GOP leaders in other states are taking steps to protect children, very few are doing so in South Dakota.

Turning Her Back on South Dakota Children

South Dakota State University exists on a state land grant and a significant portion of its operating budget — 27 percent — comes from the state. The school is governed by the South Dakota Board of Regents, whose members are appointed by the state’s governor. Noem has the power to remove members of the South Dakota Board of Regents and could have threatened their dismissal for doing nothing to stop the drag performance for children at the school.

Noem could also hold the state attorney general accountable for not enforcing South Dakota’s minor protection laws. In the past, Noem has called on the attorney general to do his job for different reasons, so why she is unwilling to do so in this instance is unclear. As governor, it’s Noem’s responsibility to make policy recommendations for state lawmakers, so she could push state representatives and senators to introduce legislation similar to that in other states.

Given Noem’s unique power to effect change in this case, The Federalist emailed her office and, citing the aforementioned state law, asked whether she planned to shield children from future lewd performances, particularly when they utilize public resources.

Noem’s office did not say whether the governor had any plan to protect children from other drag events by pressuring state lawmakers to enact new legislation, holding her board of regents accountable, or calling on the attorney general to enforce the “harmful to minors” laws already in place.

Instead, the governor’s Communications Director Ian Fury simply responded that “If” the drag event “violated” the law, “[the law] should be enforced, and violators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” Then Fury referred The Federalist to the South Dakota attorney general’s office and the Brookings County state attorney, adding that these were the “appropriate place[s] to follow up.” 

The Federalist asked Fury whether Noem’s office was at least probing into the legality of the “kid-friendly” drag show and if Noem was addressing other state-funded, minor-inappropriate events in the state since this particular show was not the first child-targeted drag event to use South Dakota taxpayer resources. Earlier this year, the state’s Vermillion Public Library hosted a “Drag Queen Storytime” for children “to celebrate Vermillion Pride.” 

In his reply, Fury made no mention of a plan to rectify the past events or protect children from similar performances in the future. Again, Fury referred The Federalist to the attorney general’s office. 

Republican State Rep. Chris Karr is one of very few state elected officials who has done anything to address the “kid-friendly” drag show. “As a legislator, I have a responsibility to protect our students and families whenever possible,” Karr wrote in a letter to Dunn before the event. “As the Chair of Appropriations, I have a responsibility to monitor the utilization of State resources and ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars. This event raises questions regarding these priorities and responsibilities. This clearly sounds like an event for adults.”

Karr told The Federalist he is working with another state representative to address the drag show and other similar events.“I’m an appropriations guy, so I’m not typically the guy out fighting based on policy statutes,” Karr said, “but this situation I just felt was way over the top.”

According to Karr, the real question we need to ask when contextualizing the event is, “Why do [they] want to have kids there? If [they] want to have an adult drag show, have an adult drag show. What’s the reasoning for having kids present?” 

Unfortunately, it appears Karr is one of few leaders asking these pertinent questions or attempting to protect kids from gender-confusing and inappropriate events. As of now, Noem and state legislators have yet to step up to the plate and protect the safety and innocence of South Dakota children.