Universities in Ohio value DEI over academic programs. From looking at the program reviews that three notable universities in the state recently undertook, however, this is not immediately obvious.
By all appearances, these institutions made assessments based mostly on budgetary metrics. Kent State University announced a four-year plan to cut nearly $70 million from its budget. The University of Toledo is suspending or consolidating 48 degree programs to save more than $21 million. Miami University has cut or consolidated 18 programs according to its new program prioritization process.
Programs with low enrollments, fewer majors, high faculty-to-student ratios, and little grant potential are also being put on the chopping block. While humanities used to have some of the highest enrollment numbers compared to other departments, they have seen enrollments collapse in the last several decades.
Before the Coronavirus pandemic gripped the American consciousness in early 2020, America was seized by a pandemic of another kind: a hysteria among the nation’s elites over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The frenzy generated by the progressive-liberal press, Hollywood radicals, progressive politicians (both Democrat and Republican), the minions of the Deep State, academics, and law professors was unprecedented.
It was driven, for the most part, by the Trump Administration’s attempts to curtail illegal immigration by the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers; significant restrictions on asylum policies; the use of the National Emergencies Act to shift funds allocated for other purposes to build a border war; the use of the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while their claims are evaluated; and the end of the long-standing “catch and release” policy.
But nothing engendered as much hysteria as the president’s bare suggestion that, in 2018—the year of the sesquicentennial of the adoption of the 14th Amendment—the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States should be ended.
I expected the reaction to a recent op-ed I published calling for the end of birthright citizenship to be cantankerous. I even expected it to be hysterical—from the Left. I did not expect self-described “conservatives” to be just as hysterical as the Left, and to use precisely the same terms. “Nativist.” “Xenophobe.” “Bigot.” “Racist.” “White nationalist.” “White supremacist.”
One point I’ve been making for a while is that one faction of “conservatism”—let’s call it the anti-Trump wing, although the phenomenon long predates Trump—sounds and acts with every passing year more like a “conservative” subdivision of the Left. Like the Left, they don’t want to debate; they want to call those they disagree with evil. For what are those epithets supposed to mean, if not “evil”?
Whether or not to have birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens is one such fundamentally political question. But like so many other political questions, this one is ruled out of bounds by scholars, lawyers, experts, pundits, and professional moralists.
The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.
On my last Q&A, a commenter asked me how I prevent myself from partaking in tribal hatred of the other, and instead focus my critiques on centers of power. I replied by discussing the nature of good & evil, and how both manifest within all of us, as well as in the most dire, distressful times. I repeatedly experienced this—the "miracle of human kindness"—as a war correspondent.
The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
On this special crossover episode of After America and Follow the Money, Dr Emma Shortis and Ebony Bennett discuss the role of Elon Musk, Trump’s pause on all US foreign aid, his ability to ‘flood the zone’, and just how much better he is at it this time around.
This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 28 January 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
#MonetaryPolicy201 is a monthly series about the basics of monetary policy. It’s a “201” series because I will be grounding the basics of monetary policy on their largely forgotten legal foundations. The beginning of this series will focus on various aspects of the question: “What is Money Finance”? This is the Second Part, find Part 1 here. You will need a paid subscription to read the full series. You can subscribe here. Your reader support which makes my Freedom of Information Act project, archival research and general writing possible.
Please recommend an institutional subscription to your academic library, or employer (details here)
This article is read by Eunice Wong, a Juilliard-trained actor, featured on Audible's list of Best Women Narrators. Her work is on the annual Best Audiobooks lists of the New York Times, Audible, AudioFile, & Library Journal. www.eunicewong.actor
There is an old European proverb: “Where two fight, a third one wins.”
Anyone with eyes to see the misaligned interests of our major industrial factions can see that an existential clash is coming between the climate industry and artificial intelligence. The under-asked question is how the patriot, who cares little for the discrete interests of either party but greatly about his country, should proceed.
For the last 30 years, American businesses and investors have tripped over themselves to remake their portfolios with a focus on “sustainable” energy. Governments have subsidized this industry to the tune of trillions and made men rich off of their collective participation in this cultish climate scheme.
Smart observers have noted there are many ways to combat the observed “climate crisis” besides a hyper-focus on carbon-emissions reduction. But none of these alternative strategies line the pockets of the forces that have set up financial, industrial, and political projects in support of the shift.
Innovations in solar, wind, and other non-coal/oil/gas energy production schemes are impressive—if you start with the premise that it is urgently necessary to move away from fossil fuels. The entire global project is a house of cards, and the moment someone credible says, “What if we don’t need to worry about that?” the foundational cards are removed and their wealth crumbles.
While LGBTQI+ people have long faced discrimination and brutal oppression, international law has typically failed to recognize it as a crime. Until now.
Before the ink dried on the flurry of Executive Orders signed on Donald Trump’s first day (back) in office, while partygoers nursed inaugural hangovers or perhaps hadn’t even stilled the flow of celebratory champagne yet, the Washington Postreported that federal health agencies had been told to “pause” all external communications.
HHS, the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH are among the agencies implicated by the guidance.
Across town, I nursed my own pounding headache. This news wasn’t helping.
Mine wasn’t the result of too much celebration or champagne; mine was the result of my November 2023 COVID-19 infection, since which I’ve had migraines nearly every day for 14 months.
The Trump 2.0 era has officially begun, and it’s off to a fast-paced start. In just a few days, we’ve seen sweeping changes, executive orders, and policy shifts that are already making waves. While political discussions abound, my focus here is on what really matters to traders and investors: the markets. Specifically, how will this new administration’s fiscal priorities impact market movements in the months and years ahead?
Setting the Stage: A Bull Market in Transition
As we stand today, markets are on the edge of all-time highs. This follows nearly two years of a relentless bull market that has pushed asset prices steadily higher. The key question is whether this momentum will continue in the Trump 2.0 environment, or whether we’re about to see a shift.
To answer that, we need to focus on the primary driver of markets over the past several years: fiscal flows. The fundamental idea here, rooted in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), is that government spending adds financial assets to the private sector. Those assets, whether saved or spent, ultimately funnel into financial markets, driving asset prices higher.
In short, fiscal flows are the lifeblood of the markets. When government spending accelerates, markets tend to follow suit. Conversely, when spending slows, so do markets.
At the beginning of each presidential term, an inaugural address provides an opportunity for a president to set the tone for things to come through an artful articulation of principle, a considered reflection on the present and the future, and, at least on some occasions, an inspired political poetry that appeals to “the better angels of our nature.” Donald J. Trump’s Second Inaugural Address did much of this, but with the soaring poetry (which was ample enough) appearing only in the final section of the speech.
More than a few commentators have noted, not without justification, that Trump’s address on the 20th of January 2025 at times resembled a State of the Union Address more than a classic inaugural one. But there is a perfectly justified reason for this: President Trump and his supporters believe, rightly in my view, that the Left’s zealous commitment to DEI and the new racialism, transgender ideology, “saving democracy” by burying it, “lawfare” directed against political opponents (most notably Trump himself), and the censoring of free political speech in the name of fighting “misinformation” threatens the very fabric of our constitutional republic, along with its indispensable moral and cultural prerequisites. In these circumstances, it was not possible or appropriate to declare as a victorious Thomas Jefferson had done in 1801, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
Central America, a region critical to America’s security and prosperity, stands at a dangerous crossroads. Emboldened by the Biden Administration, leftist regimes have unleashed a wave of corruption, organized crime, and authoritarianism that threatens not only the region’s stability but also the interests of the United States.
Recently, Honduras’s socialist President Xiomara Castro brazenly threatened the United States, declaring she would expel U.S. military bases from the country if President Trump followed through on his plans to deport illegal Honduran nationals.
Castro’s comments were nothing short of audacious. She accused the U.S. of benefiting from Honduran territory for decades without paying a cent, and suggested that any deportation policy would force her government to “reconsider cooperation” in military matters. This brazen attempt to intimidate a democratically elected American president is a striking reminder of how far leftist leaders are willing to go to undermine U.S. interests while demanding handouts.
If seeing the new world order sitting in the front row of Donald Trump’s inauguration didn’t send a chill down your spine then there may not be a lot of point reading beyond this line.
Much has been said about the oligarchy threatening America’s democracy. But this is not an oligarchy we are facing. It’s a plutocracy.
The difference is money. An oligarchy is a small group of people who have amassed power, while a plutocracy is a small group of wealthy people who have amassed power.
And you might think it is just semantics, but in this case, it matters.
These plutocrats own the public square. We carry around their devices in our pockets, they own our personal information, they know who we talk to, and who we listen to. We drive their cars, we fill our homes with their products, we shop on their platforms. American journalist Ken Klippenstein calls them the ‘appistocracy’ and they now have the ear of the ‘leader of the free world’ because their apps helped support his path to power.
Elon Musk has since turned his attention to UK politics, laying the groundwork through his ownership of one of the biggest social media platforms in the world to elevate his own beliefs and sew the seeds of discontent. No democracy is immune from the immense reach of the richest people on earth who are currently in a race to become the world’s first trillionaire, without care of who or what they crush to do it.
Allowing public hearings whenever in the public interest
The NACC can only hold public hearings in “exceptional circumstances” and when “it is in the public interest to do so”. The Hon Robert Redlich was the head of the Victorian anti-corruption watchdog, which is also only permitted to hold public hearings in “exceptional circumstances”. Redlich argues there is no need “to require ‘exceptional circumstances’”.
The NACC should instead be allowed to hold public hearings whenever it is in the public interest, regardless of whether the circumstances are exceptional or not. Public hearings would build trust and allow the commission to demonstrate that it is investigating corruption effectively and appropriately. They would also discourage corruption by showing the consequences for such behaviour.
While it is state laws that impose these draconian penalties, the Federal Government could secure the freedom to protest by legislating federal protections for peaceful protest, in line with Australia’s obligations under international agreements.
Whether it is women’s suffrage, the eight-hour workday or saving the Franklin River from being dammed, protest movements have been responsible for some of Australia’s most significant advances in human rights and environmental protection.
Una inmigrante transgénero está demandando por el maltrato que sufrió en un centro de detención federal, que incluye ser obligada a desvestirse frente a prisioneros varones.
In states across the country, left-wing academics and major educational establishments are hijacking the review process for K-12 history and civics curricula. Educators and radicals, in league with one another, are conspiring to turn students against America’s traditional cultural and political institutions.
Now that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is being exposed as ahistorical indoctrination, a new permutation of neo-Marxist theory is gaining currency in our schools. It’s called postcolonialism. Its stated mission is to fight “settler colonialism,” a term used to describe any society supposedly built upon the oppression and genocide of indigenous people. Examples of “settler societies” include Israel, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and the United States. The recentstudentactivism against Israel, which denied the country’s right to exist and celebrated terrorist attacks against it, demonstrated the true nature of postcolonialism and its power to inspire hatred on campus.
A transgender immigrant is suing over the mistreatment she suffered in a federal detention center, which includes being forced to undress in front of male prisoners.
