China Guilty Of More Than Just Lab Leak

By Kate Robinson

A Wall Street Journal investigation recently revealed that three Wuhan, China lab workers participating in the gain of function research were hospitalized in November 2019 with COVID-19 symptoms. This occurred about a month before the “first case” – supposedly contracted from a bat at a Wuhan wet market and independent from the lab – was made public.  

The Journal’s discovery is now enough to prompt politicians and other health officials to investigate the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab. However, had one mentioned this theory a year and a half ago – as did then-President Donald Trump – he or she was probably deplatformed, ridiculed, or deemed an alt-right conspiracy theorist. 

So, instead, we opted to nod our head in agreement with the world’s elites for the last 18 months as they spun a story full of sick bats and infected wet markets, only for the lab leak hypothesis to never sufficiently be proven wrong. Buying into the twisted narrative of an accidental pandemic gone wrong is perhaps a mistake far more lethal than the destruction caused by the virus itself.  

If COVID-19 really did escape from the Wuhan lab, then it so clearly illustrates China’s attempt to intentionally wage war against the United States. To not recognize it means that China is already winning. Unless we fight back, our unwillingness to counter an authoritarian, evil regime is only the beginning of what will eventually lead to China’s world domination. 

China’s plans have been a long time coming. In 1963, China released a list of “45 Communist Goals” which were read into the United States Congressional Record by Florida Democrat Rep. A.S. Herlong, Jr. All 45 objectives are centered around China gaining ultimate power over the rest of the world and its biggest competitor, the United States. The most alarming, and familiar to us now, include “(capturing) one or both of the political parties in the United States; (getting) control of the schools; (gaining) control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures; and (discrediting) the American Founding Fathers.” For the past 58 years, the communist regime has chipped away at its plan, subtly converting and targeting compromised US politicians, celebrities, and other top officials to its side.  

So why, then, would we be so naive to assume that The Communist Party of China did not purposely create and leak a virus to the rest of the world that would undoubtedly allow itself to move even closer to achieving its ultimate goal of destroying the backbone of our country from within?

In the past year and a half, the Democratic party has become more left than ever, dictating when we leave our house, what we wear on our face, and how much we purchase from the grocery store. The party has been captured.  

Millions of students have been forced out of school because of a virus that has been proven not to lead to substantial community infection (should instruction remain in-person). The nonsensical school shutdowns have been a concerted effort to make the next generation more reliant on online learning programs that discredit our country’s history and propagate the communist agenda. The education system is under attack.

News coverage of the pandemic, BLM riots, and American politics has been manipulated to portray the classic left-leaning bias that turns citizens of the U.S. against one another. China leverages news outlets such as NBC News, CNBC, and MSNBC, to name just a few, and controls at least 8,000 American major motion pictures.

The endless lockdowns made for a strange 2020 election cycle, causing our citizens to question the seemingly limitless power of government that the Founding Fathers tried so hard to curtail 234 years ago. It has never failed us before, so why would it now? 

The answer is clear. The release of a global pandemic and the subsequent coverup and likely lies about its origin are just what China needed to crash the U.S. economy. China, now more than ever, has the United States in its grasp. It is up to us, as Americans, not to let Her crumble.

We must fight against government mandates that control our daily lives. We must protest to return to in-person school. We must consume news from sources that China does not have a hand in. We must remember that democracy will always prevail.

I finish with a prophetic warning from my great-great grandfather, a United States immigrant who fled then-communist Yugoslavia nearly 100 years ago. “America will one day be destroyed, not from a bomb or a bullet, but from within.”

I hope we prove him wrong.

Ms. Robinson is a freshman at Chapman University majoring in Strategic & Corporate Communication and a columnist for The Hesperian.

A Republican Roadmap to Taking Back California

Gavin Newsom recall strategy brands opposition as Republican | The  Sacramento Bee
Photo Credit: The Sacramento Bee/John Walker

By Ethan Nikfar 

Earlier in April, California’s secretary of state announced that recall petitioners gathered and submitted over 1,626,000 valid signatures to recall Governor Gavin Newsom, surpassing the required amount by over 100,000 signatures. Newsom, who just a few years ago was being touted as a future presidential nominee, has faced mounting criticism due to his inconsistent COVID-19 response. Liberals have espoused anger at him reopening the state too fast, while conservatives have expressed their displeasure with the state’s business-crushing Draconian lockdowns. 

In the recall election, voters will first be asked whether or not they wish to remove the governor. If a majority support the removal, then they get to vote on a replacement. Recent polls (for what they’re worth) have Newsom comfortable and treading above water. A KABC/SurveyUSA poll from early May has only 36 percent of voters backing his removal, while 47 percent wish him to stay. 

Many voters point to California’s 2003 recall of then-Governor Grey Davis as a glimmer of hope for this year’s election. But unfortunately, political dynamics were glaringly different nearly two decades ago. In 2004, George W. Bush lost the Golden State by only 9.95 points. In 2020, Donald Trump lost the state by almost 30 points. The state has turned much bluer since the last recall election.

So, is there anything Republicans can do to halt the one-party control? 

Chances are slim, but California Republicans would be wise actually to interest themselves with the deep-blue state’s politics. In 2020, GOP candidates got destroyed across the state, but conservative ballot initiatives fared well. 

For example, Uber, Lyft, and other gig-economy firms went to task and drafted a proposition to prevent the classification of independent contractors as full-time employees. This prevents hammering in independent contractors and freelance writers who wish to work on their own time. If the proposition did not pass and the California courts’ idiotic rulings became law, it would have probably resulted in Uber and Lyft ceasing operations in the state. Labor unions and progressive activists fought hard against the proposition, but 58 percent of voters voted in favor of it.

When Californians attempted to disavow their state’s constitution and enshrine racial and sexual preferences in college admissions and government employment, voters also struck that down

How about prohibiting cash bail? California voters said: No, thanks

What happened when the state tried to allow 17-year-old primary voters the ability to vote if they turned 18 before the general election? Californians rightfully rejected it. 

Democrats also wanted to expand the ability of the state to enact rent control, one of the most failed policies of the last century. Voters were also not down with that idea. 

So, what does this suggest? California voters are attitudinally liberal and may hate GOP candidates, but they are not necessarily opposed to conservative ideas. Running on the correct issues and presenting the correct image to voters is key to being competitive. 

In the past, GOP politicians have attempted to run on issues such as education, where they express support for school choice and school vouchers. That may work in a state like Florida, where there is evidence that strong support for school choice helped propel now Gov. Ron DeSantis to victory over Andrew Gillum. But, Ron DeSantis is a once-in-a-generation kind of political talent and Florida is an evenly divided state; California is not. It is impossible to run on an issue in California where the solution from Democrats is to throw more money at the system. Republicans have to run on issues that all Californians are fed up with. 

What are those issues? There are two main problems California Republicans need to be pressing forward: crime and quality of life. 

The state’s major cities saw a significant uptick in homicides and car thefts last year. It is no coincidence that it corresponds with the anti-police rhetoric and subsequent “defund the police” sloganeering by prominent Democrats. 

All Americans, including Democrats, are interested in keeping their communities and families safe. Even minorities, which progressives are supposedly fighting for, are not invested in the “defund the police” idea. 81 percent of black people want just as much, if not more, policing in their neighborhoods. The demonization of police gravely cost Democrats in down-ballot races; Republicans would be foolish not to utilize it in this year’s recall election.

Republicans also need to highlight the decreasing quality of life within the state. Schools in California have been closed for over a year at the behest of selfish teachers’ unions, even though the evidence points to schools being safe to reopen. And, as it turns out, parents are frequently unable to go to work because small children cannot be home alone on Zoom. Newsom’s allegiance to teachers’ unions has not only displayed scientific ineptitude, but he has also alienated a key voting bloc. 

Moreover, at least 161,000 homeless people currently reside in the state. The homeless drop syringes (and defecation) on streets around young children, spread disease, and decrease access to public spaces. Most parents do not like to have their children playing in and around public parks dominated by such distasteful conditions. 

But, most importantly, GOP candidates have to address California’s housing crisis. Housing prices are so high that if you factor in their costs, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. Policies such as zoning laws and rent control that limit the supply of housing have drastically increased prices. The GOP would be wise to present an alternative by deregulating the sector and allowing for the construction of more houses.

None of this will guarantee a GOP victory later this year. Even if they take up the measures most appealing to voters and back a candidate with the combination of moderate appeal and name recognition, they will likely still lose. But this recall will be the best chance the GOP has anytime soon of freeing Californians from their authoritarian governor.

Mr. Nikfar is a sophomore at Chapman University majoring in Pre-Pharmacy and a columnist for The Hesperian.

President Biden and the Nefarious ‘Newer’ Deal

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Matt Slocum

By Kate Robinson 

As if forgiving student loan debt was not generous enough, President Joe Biden is paying Americans’ bills yet again. This time, it is through his recently enacted $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which includes such a significant level of handouts of federal unemployment benefits that businesses across the United States are struggling to find people to hire. 

Forget any so-called “rescue.” This progressive piece of legislation is shaping up to be nothing more than another FDR-style New Deal package. It sounds good, but it is really just one of the Democratic Party’s classic, power-hungry handouts in disguise. 

FDR’s New Deal reshaped the political left, leading future Democrats like Biden to believe that a high level of government oversight is reasonable and even accepted in the United States. The New Deal opened the door for potential long-term damage to the fundamental strength of our economy and society. Now, Biden’s American Rescue Plan will finish the job, so long as he continues down the same path as his predecessor. 

During FDR’s term in the midst of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25.6 percent. But, instead of telling Americans to stay home, FDR encouraged them to find jobs. In fact, he even went so far as to create jobs for people. Sure, it is easy to believe that FDR’s vast implementation of government programs was beneficial to the economy, but really, it is the same as Biden’s approach – just more subtle and positioned differently. Incentivizing Americans to stay home is even more destructive than FDR’s temporary and artificial job policies from 100 years ago. 

The unemployment payments today are so high that they are equivalent to someone making $15.95 an hour during a 40-hour work week. It looks like Biden has finally figured out a way to raise the minimum wage after all. 

According to The New York Post, unemployed people are currently receiving $300 per week from the federal government, plus approximately $320 more in state benefits. This averages to about $638 per week, which means that someone can make $30,624 per year by just sitting at home. Biden is paying people to stay on their couch, leaving governors to fight against his backward policy with their own incentives to get people back to work. 

Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey, for instance, announced last week that he plans to pay people $2,000 to return to work and that he is no longer accepting federal money starting July 10. Montana’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, recently announced a similar plan. Any unemployed individual who accepts a job and maintains it for at least a month will earn a bonus from the federal unemployment grants. While both of these are still not ideal approaches, they are better than knowingly running the economy into the ground, which Biden is doing very well. The Labor Department reported last month that employers added 266,000 new jobs to the market (a significant and disappointing decline), leaving approximately 7.4 million positions open. Both numbers are obvious signs that the economy is ready and has room to grow, and probably would be growing at a very quick pace, if it were not for Biden incentivizing Americans to stay home. 

If he were around today, FDR would surely agree with Biden’s attempts to keep the economy in the government’s grasp. In fact, it was FDR himself who masterminded the idea of big government. And now, Biden is taking it to the extreme. 

FDR favored unions, Biden has passed legislation to increase their power; FDR implemented the federal minimum wage, Biden has just figured out a way to effectively raise it; FDR wanted government control, Biden has cleverly concocted a way to kill small businesses, forcing a majority of Americans to rely on government support from cradle to grave. 

While some may find the American Rescue Plan to be a suitable piece of legislation to help ease the country out of the artificial depression caused by the COVID-19 lockdowns, others know that – like FDR – President Biden does not really care about our families, jobs, homes, education, nor livelihood, as he so claims. Instead, he simply wants us to rely on the government (and, more specifically, Democrat politicians), and the surest way to do that is to keep Americans dependent and docile. 

A Newer Deal, indeed.

Ms. Robinson is a freshman at Chapman University majoring in Strategic & Corporate Communication and a columnist for The Hesperian.

The Left’s Outrageous Attacks on Tim Scott Should Be a Wake-up Call

Picture from Senate Television video via AP

By Ethan Nikfar 

Every year, the president of the United States stands before Congress in monarchical fashion to address what the king-like figure is doing to help solve our problems. Along with it, the opposition party has a designated person with the worst job in Congress: giving a response to that speech. The out-of-power party’s rebuttal to the president is invariably seen as meager and useless in comparison to the main address. 

But last week, Tim Scott, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, became the sole exception to that rule.

Scott gave a terrific response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech – a speech that highlighted the president’s goal of fundamentally realigning the relationship between the government and the people. Biden made constitutionally illiterate claims such as, “It’s time we remembered that we the people are the government,” whereas Scott acknowledged limits on the government’s power and expressed optimism for the country’s future that stemmed from outside Washington’s schemes.        

But after the address was over, Scott became subject to the extreme vitriol of the left. Why? Because in his speech, Scott, a black man, had the temerity to say, “Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.”

With that, the left exploded with outrage. The senator was endlessly attacked and had racial slurs hurled his way. “Uncle Tim” began trending on Twitter and remained on the platform for the entire day. Leftists immediately demanded that Scott accept his lesser, victimhood status and bow down to his mobbish saviors. 

The left’s disgraceful reaction was particularly bizarre considering that Vice President Kamala Harris agreed with Scott’s statement about race in America, yet she received little to no blowback for her observation. 

Throughout the next few days, Democrats across the country attempted to portray their disgust that Scott, a black man, was chosen to lead the response. For example, The View’s co-host, Sunny Hostin, claimed, “He was chosen because he is the only black Republican Senator. He is that person.” 

In reality, Scott was not chosen by Republicans solely based on the color of his skin. Instead, he actually has political views and life experiences that make him uniquely qualified to give that specific speech, and to best address the disingenuous claims Biden was making about race in America.

Scott has faced racism in his everyday life – lending him credibility to speak on the matter of race in America. He also co-wrote the police reform bill last summer that Democrats filibustered before even allowing it to be debated on the floor. In a bit of an unsurprising twist, Democrats used the same filibuster they now decry as a “Jim Crow relic” to stymie a black Senator’s proposal. 

Regardless, it is significantly less divisive and wrong for Tim Scott to be chosen to lead the State of the Union response than it is to select a Vice President purely based on her gender and skin color. If you are wondering who may have done such a thing, look no further than our current president, who openly admitted to vetting vice presidential candidates based on their gender and skin color. But when Joe Biden did precisely that, we heard only praise from the left. 

That really suggests one thing – parrot the woke left’s viewpoints, and you can say what you want about race and emphasize its importance (or lack thereof) without pushback. Suggest, however, that the left may be wrong, and you suddenly turn into an evil ignoramus who is withdrawn from the reality of race in this country. Such is the pamphlet to our current political discourse. 

This insane treatment has not been limited to just Tim Scott. Nikki Haley, the former UN Ambassador and Governor of South Carolina, has had similar slurs directed her way due to her Punjabi heritage. 

To the Democratic Party, there is only one way of life for anyone non-white: to be Democrats. Anyone accused of breaking that orthodoxy is subjected to cruel, vile harassment. 

The irony is that even though Democrats howled to the moon that the Trump-led GOP was the party of white nationalism, the GOP made significant inroads with minority voters in 2020.

Aside from that, Senator Scott deserves better; he is a decent man in indecent times. But to Democrats, his character and the merit of his ideas are of zero importance. The only things that matter are the words “black” and “Republican.” 

Progressives who think they get to decide who qualifies as black have not only cost us an honest conversation about race, but they have also revealed themselves to be a party of race-obsessed partisans unwilling to tolerate opposing ideas. 

Mr. Nikfar is a sophomore at Chapman University majoring in Pre-Pharmacy and a columnist for The Hesperian.

The Scientific Establishment Has Lost Our Trust

By Ethan Nikfar

Over a year ago, a deadly new virus struck the world, forcing us to entirely adapt and revamp our lifestyles to prevent its spread. In response, we embraced public health officials, particularly in the federal government, to make sense of it. But today, those same public health officials have become increasingly unreasonable, withdrawn from reality, and unwilling to accept new evidence that challenges their outdated stances. 

Public health officials have done a ton of admirable work through the duration of the pandemic. But as the figures Americans are looking up to for guidance in uncharted waters, they have an obligation to define and explain risks associated with the pandemic accurately. 

Their job is not to coax us into behaving a certain way or lie to us about the data. Unfortunately, over the last several months, such distasteful behavior has become all too common for members of the scientific establishment. 

Among the culprits are Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert (also the highest-paid official in the federal government), the CDC, and FDA. 

Let us start with Dr. Fauci. At the beginning of the pandemic, Fauci was a welcome sight for most Americans; he was the voice of reason we listened to in order to keep up with the latest news and updates on the virus. For the first few months of the pandemic, he did this relatively solidly. But since, he has become intentionally misleading, power-hungry, and relishing in his newfound celebrity status. 

Fauci began the pandemic in early March by discouraging mask usage. In an interview on 60 Minutes on March 8, 2020, Fauci stated, “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” This was in an attempt to influence Americans to not wear masks so that healthcare workers would not face a shortage. But Fauci is a public health official. His job is to convey accurate public health information to the public – not to try and influence our behavior by tricking us into acting a certain way. Sadly, the deception was not limited to mask usage. 

Fauci also deliberately shifted the goalposts when discussing the percentage of Americans who would need to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity. Initially stating that only 60 to 70 percent would need to be vaccinated, Fauci nudged the number up to 80 to 90 percent of the population. In an interview with the New York Times‘ Donald McNeil Jr., Fauci admitted to moving the goalposts “partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.” 

Fauci also praised Governor Andrew Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic. Fauci, of course, will not mention the fact that New York has the second-highest COVID-19 death rate per million in America. Nor will he tell you that Cuomo signed an executive order to force COVID-positive patients back into nursing homes, killing nearly 13,000 elderly residents. Additionally, the governor’s aides tried to cover up and undercount the number of nursing home deaths for months to avoid federal investigation. For Fauci, New York was worthy of praise. The state’s citizens probably think differently.

When Fauci was questioned about the risk of COVID-19 spread in migrant detention facilities that force migrants into extremely close quarters, he stated, “I have nothing to do with the border . . . Having me down at the border, that’s really not what I do.” Really? Fauci has been more than happy to insert himself into other discussions, such as the travel ban, in the past year. He just does not want to criticize the Biden Administration.

Fauci criticized Texas for lifting its mask mandate. Yet, more than a month and a half after Governor Greg Abbott rescinded the mandate, the seven-day average of daily deaths in Texas is at its lowest point since early July of 2020. Daily cases have declined at a similar rate. When asked about this, Fauci stated, “You know, there are a lot of things that go into that. I mean, when you say that they’ve had a lot of the activity on the outside like ball games, I’m not really quite sure. It could be they’re doing things outdoors.” Fauci lacks the prerequisite understanding that behavioral patterns do not shift when the government announces a law that is impossible to enforce. Many on the political left (seemingly including Fauci) also seem not to fathom that people can wear masks without a mandate. Perhaps that can be attributed to their worldview that individuals cannot make rational decisions without the force of government compelling them to do so.

In late February, Fauci maintained that vaccinated individuals should not go to indoor restaurants or crowded movie theaters. Curious, given that data from Israel found that vaccinated individuals are at very low risk of transmitting the virus to others. If being vaccinated does not allow you to resume engaging in everyday activities, then what will? 

Fauci’s recommendations for vaccinated individuals are not only ridiculous, but they actively discourage people from getting vaccinated. If being vaccinated does not change what you are allowed to do, then why would a healthy 25-year-old whose parents and grandparents have been vaccinated now choose to go through the hassle of getting vaccinated himself? 

Fauci should instead be promoting the message that the faster we get vaccinated, the sooner we can return to everyday life. But he will simply not let that happen. 

It took Fauci until late April to announce that vaccinated people can start to unmask outdoors. He stated, “It’s pretty common sense now that the outdoor risk is really quite low.” If so, what took him so long? 

But even now, his stamp of approval is limited to certain outdoor activities. 

Not only has Fauci deliberately downplayed the efficacy of vaccines by recommending that vaccinated individuals cannot go and enjoy their lives, but he has also mirrored Democrats’ misguided arguments about perpetually delaying school reopenings.

Questionable behavior was unfortunately not limited to just Fauci. The CDC has done its part too. 

The CDC has continued to maintain its recommendation that 90 percent of schools remain partially closed. This is even as studies have shown that children are not at risk of receiving nor transmitting the virus, and teachers are at no more at risk than the general public. Schools have been safe to reopen the entire time – especially now that so many school staff have been vaccinated. 

Moreover, the CDC’s summer camp guidance insists that kids over the age of two and all adults (regardless of whether they have been vaccinated) need to wear masks at all times. This makes zero sense. As studies have documented, not only are the vaccines tremendously effective at preventing spread, but young children have never been a key vector of transmission. Combine that with the humidity of the summer, and the CDC is actively recommending the needless suffering of kids. 

Not only is the CDC’s guidance scientifically illiterate, but when any organization makes recommendations that are lacking in reason and logic, people stop listening to them. 

On April 27, in another instance where public health officials discouraged people from getting vaccinated, the CDC updated a chart on the activities that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals can safely do. According to them, when indoors, vaccinated people still need to wear masks at all times. There is no evidence to suggest that vaccinated people are vectors of transmission. The vaccines are a scientific miracle; we should treat them as such. 

The FDA is certainly not devoid of criticism either. Earlier this month, it recommended pausings Johnson & Johnson vaccines across the country. Why? You may ask. There were six blood clots found in vaccinated patients out of 6.8 million people. The FDA wanted to pause the J&J vaccine because one in a million people who received the vaccine developed a blood clot. Let us put that into perspective – in the U.S., the odds of being struck by lightning in any given year is 1 in 500,000 – a better chance than developing a blood clot due to the vaccine. Not only is the FDA’s decision nonsensical, but now it likely makes people increasingly skeptical of receiving the vaccine because they are even more worried about side effects that are extremely rare. 

What do we get from the FDA in return? Likely only a warning put on the side of a label that no one outside of a vaccine administrator will ever read. How many more lives would have been saved due to the vaccine if not for the FDA’s questionable cost-benefit analysis?

If it were up to the public health officials in the federal government, kids all across the country would not be able to go to school, and we would still be largely forced to the confines of our own homes. 

Our scientific establishment has maintained that to avoid risk, Americans should give up all that made life great without considering tradeoffs and reality. “Avoiding risk” has now actively become risk-taking. In actuality, most Americans have been participating in the majority of their normal life for months. By denying that reality, public health officials will continue to be ignored. But in the end, they may deserve that. 

Mr. Nikfar is a sophomore at Chapman University majoring in Pre-Pharmacy and a columnist for The Hesperian.

Biden Promised Bipartisanship, but Now He Just Bumbles and Backtracks

By Kate Robinson

April 30 marks President Joe Biden’s 100th day in office. What started as a pleading call for unity and bipartisanship is shaping up to be nothing more than a far-left train wreck. Thus far, the 78-year-old commander-in-chief has proven that his administration is incapable of exhibiting competent leadership and clear articulation of its policies. 

President Biden is so concerned about behaving in direct opposition to Donald Trump’s widely-criticized demeanor that he is turning himself into a weak and confusing ruler. This is seen in the way that his frustrations are masked through mass signings of executive orders (currently totaling over 60), his refusal to meet Republicans halfway on the COVID-19 stimulus bill, and his failure to elaborate on his radical policy proposals, such as his ultimate thoughts on a vaccine passport or his inability to explain the truth about his so-called infrastructure bill, which is really more of a progressive spending measure in disguise. So much for an honest leader who pledged to reach across the aisle. 

Upon entering office, President Biden had one important task that the American people were counting on him to fix: the COVID-19 pandemic. He knew about this challenge before the inauguration, giving him ample time to devise his Seven Point Plan for tackling the virus, set a “goal” of 100 million shots in the first 100 days (even though the Trump administration was already close to accomplishing this) and work with governors to efficiently distribute the vaccine. 

Even with the benefit of time, President Biden admitted that even he did not have control over his own agenda. “There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” How is that for a confident leader? 

Perhaps that is why, when migrants unexpectedly flocked to the southern border a few weeks ago in the highest numbers that the United States has seen in three years, the Biden administration handled the event in the way that any weak leader would – by blaming the “dismantled” and “unworkable system” (as White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki deemed it) on the former president. 

Anyone who followed the recent developments at the border would know that it was not Mr. Trump’s sound immigration policies of green card limitations and refugee restrictions (which were especially necessary during a pandemic) that were suddenly beginning to cause damage. Instead, it is simply that our current president had no plan for such a crisis and panicked. Perhaps this is why journalists were not initially given access to facilities and why children were haphazardly granted permission to enter the United States.

Core policy intentions aside, we actually have a President who cannot properly handle unforeseen challenges, let alone ones he was prepared for. No wonder thousands of migrants thought they could get away with entering our country illegally.

Where is the unity and bipartisanship that President Biden constantly preached about? Where is the strong, “moderate” leader that claimed we would be able to trust and count on? President Biden is governing the country as if Democrats slaughtered Republicans in November,  as if more than 74 million Americans did not vote for his opponent. His narrow victory was certainly no mandate. 

I would think that of everyone in Washington, D.C., President Biden, a former 36-year senator and two-term vice president, would be the first to recognize a leader whose agenda is wishy-washy and very misleading. But apparently, old age and being a career politician have gotten the best of him. 

President Biden still has a chance to recover and make his first term a decent one. After all, he lucked out with an evenly-split senate and a close-to-equal House of Representatives. A strong and fair leader would use this opportunity to advocate for compromise and bipartisan policies – a rare commodity in politics. 

The United States is witnessing a leader who has no plan, switches his tune depending on the day, and is still obsessing over replicating Obama’s presidency and trashing Trump’s. Our country deserves a president who can work with both sides of the aisle and be upfront about his views on policies, even when he might receive backlash or opposition. Unfortunately, President Biden is doing none of this. 

To that, I say, “C’mon, man!”

Ms. Robinson is a freshman at Chapman University majoring in Strategic & Corporate Communication and a columnist for The Hesperian.

Why Conservatives Should Care About Culture Wars

(Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images)

By Ethan Nikfar

A few weeks ago, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg published a piece in The Dispatch on why culture wars are a distraction. Goldberg argues that while Republicans are busy focusing on petty battles such as Dr. Seuss, Democrats are ramming through spending bills using money we do not have. In Goldberg’s eyes, the real fights are the policy battles that conservatives have deemed secondary to the culture wars. 

If examining from a simplistic perspective, this seems correct. Why do conservatives seem to not have any grassroots opposition to President Biden’s spending plans when they are being discussed and voted on right in front of our eyes? 

But something too many never-Trump conservatives, including Goldberg, fail to recognize is that politics is downstream from culture. Culture impacts people – how they grow up and consume information – and that manifests in how they see politics. Conservatives will lose policy battles if they do not change the underlying culture because policy exists as an outgrowth of culture. 

It is no longer 2010. The central debate is no longer about military policy nor spending policy. The debate is about a woke, authoritarian left that seeks to divide people on the basis of immutable characteristics and force others to adhere to their worldview. 

This is not to say political battles do not matter. Political issues matter a ton – that is why I choose to discuss them frequently. President Biden’s spending plans are disastrous. His untargeted COVID-19 “relief” bill was a monstrosity and a half. His $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan is a political slush fund. His administration’s proposed tax increases will surely decrease the rate of economic recovery at a time when corporations are trying to rehire employees. 

But more important than debates about tax and spending policy is how people are treated in their everyday lives. Are they worried about sharing their opinion online because they could be fired from their job? Are they scared to tell their friend group about their political views because those friends will ostracize them? Are they afraid to speak up about the backward (and often-times racist) diversity training that major corporations and government agencies put their employees through? Those issues matter far more than politics. 

Moreover, for the left, too frequently, what starts in the culture does not end in the culture – it ends as law. A culture that labels everyone to Hillary Clinton’s right as a deplorable who should not have the right to speak is upstream of a Canadian-style hate speech law restricting that right to speech. A culture that believes that gender is simply a spectrum and that there are no biological differences between men and women is upstream of a law that allows biological men to compete in women’s sports. A culture that believes religious freedom comes second to social justice is upstream of laws that clamp down on religious freedom in the name of anti-discrimination law. 

The left has made regular life a living nightmare for conservatives by politicizing every major institution in the country. The most apparent example recently being the pressure the mainstream media has put on major corporations to condemn a common-sense Georgia voting law that many on the left, including our president, have deliberately misrepresented. Conservatives have avoided that same tactic because they inherently do not want to be divisive. But now the choice has become binary: conservatives can either continue to see their values diminish in the public sphere, or they fight back and establish an understanding of mutually assured destruction. 

One can reasonably question whether or not GOP politicians are the proper figures to be leading cultural battles. But what is not an option anymore is for the party to simply not do anything about it. 

I have much respect for Goldberg. We disagree plenty, but he is intelligent and thoughtful. He is also plain wrong on this topic. Culture wars are not a “distraction.” They are the primary fight. If conservatives do not realize this, we will squander both the culture and the policy. 

Mr. Nikfar is a Sophomore at Chapman University studying Pre-Pharmacy. 

O’Mara, Eastman, and the Threat to Intellectual Diversity

Photo by Chapman Republicans

By Justin Buckner

I am disappointed in Chapman University. In December and early January, President Daniele Struppa sent out five emails to students and faculty in regard to Dr. John Eastman, the former dean of Chapman’s Fowler School of Law, a Chapman professor, and lawyer of former President Donald Trump. With this came 15 articles from The Panther, a signed letter from 159 faculty and 10 board of trustee members, as well as numerous angry students, all who put pressure on President Struppa to fire Dr. Eastman. 

This led Dr. Eastman to the logical conclusion that he would not be welcomed back to a safe environment on campus. So, Eastman resigned

Now, it’s time for Professor Liam O’Mara to take the hot seat. On March 23rd, the adjunct history professor sent a KKK hood to black conservative pundit Candace Owens. This image – regardless of O’Mara’s “white savior” intentions – has always, and still does, represent racial intimidation and lynchings. 

Almost three weeks later, and we have heard NOTHING from the administration, faculty, and student body regarding this issue.

Not a single email from Dean Jerry Price nor President Struppa. No Panther articles calling for his firing or even raising awareness of Dr. O’Mara’s disgusting actions. No protests nor petitions to rid Chapman of racism. No student body uprising to prevent a racist professor from returning to campus. For a university that preaches diversity and acceptance of others’ differences, we have just seen a prime example of its hypocrisy.

The administration has clearly created an environment in which conservative ideas are intimidated into silence. Many students and faculty feel they are unable to speak up because of the inevitable ostracizing from their peers. This environment has stemmed from a lack of respect for intellectual diversity, which has directly disadvantaged conservative students and faculty on campus.

Look at this situation honestly: if a white conservative Chapman professor had sent a KKK hood to a black person, there would be massive protests on campus for their removal. There would also be massive coverage from The Panther, as well as every club and greek life group on campus. However, when the political parties are reversed, we hear nothing but silence. The sad truth is that the only people who have called out true racism in Chapman’s faculty this year are the Chapman Republicans. We shouldn’t be alone in this battle.

It is now apparent that for Chapman, diversity only comes in three forms – race, religion, and gender. Intellectual diversity has increasingly been on life support, not only on Chapman’s campus, but nationwide.

In order to begin fixing this lack of intellectual diversity, we need to get more conservative professors on campus. Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, conducted a study of 51 of the 66 highest-ranked liberal-arts colleges in the United States. At those colleges, Democrat professors outnumbered Republicans at every school, in every field of study. Extreme cases, such as Wellesley College, Williams College, and Swarthmore College, exceeded a ratio of 120-1. This trend, unfortunately, is not just at liberal arts schools. A following study conducted by Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens analyzed Democrat-Republican voter registration of 12,372 professors at top universities across the nation and discovered that Democrat professors outnumber Republicans 8.5 to 1.

As college continues to become more expensive, the quality of education and students’ ability to become educated on differing ideas and perspectives is decreasing. The purpose of attending a university is to become equipped for the real world, meet a wide variety of individuals, and dive deeply into a particular field of study. When a vast majority of professors are monolithic in their political views, we are training the next generation to be unprepared for differing perspectives, as their views are rarely challenged. Conservative students’ beliefs are challenged in the classroom daily, while liberal students cannot even stand to have a proud and prestigious Republican professor in their law school.

It all starts with the administration. If we are going to strive for a diverse faculty and student body, we need to search for diversity of thought. The university’s goal to have a wide variety of individuals differing in skin color, gender, and religion is great, but true diversity comes through our differences in character. We should not be focusing so hard on surface-level diversity; rather, we should focus on bringing people into Chapman’s faculty and student body who can help learn from one another. Only then will students have the knowledge and experience to be prepared for the real world post-graduation.

Justin Buckner is a junior at Chapman University majoring in Broadcast Journalism and Documentary with a minor in Political Science. He is serving as the president of the Chapman Republican’s Club during the 2020-2021 academic year. This opinion piece is part of a running column written by Buckner.

Canceling Student Loan Debt Is Terrible Policy

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

By Ethan Nikfar

Our elected officials often display too much creativity. They invent new issues to be solved by highly funded bureaucratic agencies instead of focusing on getting the already-too-large government to just do the ordinary things competently. Nevertheless, sometimes, they lack cleverness, as Democratic demands for canceling student loan debt have shown us. 

President Biden has morphed his Presidency from an emphasis on a return to normalcy, unity, and bipartisanship to Barack Obama’s third term, only much more liberal. This shows just one thing: his campaign was a fraud. 

Mr. Biden’s party has a deadlocked Senate and a slim majority in the House. Donald Trump came within only 42,921 votes (the margin of Mr. Biden’s combined victory in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin) of retaining the Presidency. The President does not have a mandate to enact transformative legislation. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Biden and his allies in Congress have become ambitious. Democrats in the Senate, such as Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, are demanding that Mr. Biden cancels $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower through executive action. Mr. Biden has indicated he is more comfortable with $10,000 in debt cancelation. 

Put aside the likely Constitutional violation if this action is done via Executive Order. It would still be terrible policy. 

Let us start with the premise of the argument. Democrats argue that student loan debt is crippling millennials. Their debt is a crisis that prevents them from putting money into the economy and owning their own houses. However, even their premise is incorrect; it is no “crisis.” As Beth Akers of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, the average four-year college graduate borrowed $28,500 to pursue their bachelor’s degree; this can be paid off over 20 years with $181 in monthly payments. Furthermore, suppose an individual does not make much income but has abundant outstanding debt. Under federal law, they qualify for an “income-based” repayment option that forgives the debt if they make responsible and affordable payments over a period of time. 

But unwilling to let the pandemic go to waste before implementing the transformational changes she desires, Ms. Warren says writing off the debt would “boost our economy right now.” Take the money people owe and give it back to them, which they can then spend. That will boost the economy, right? Wrong. Most of the forgiven debt would not have been paid back for years, allowing for very little short-term economic stimulation. It also seems as though Democrats have once again fallen for the broken window fallacy. What about all the taxpayers who will have to subsidize these canceled loans and whose consumer spending will then be decreased as a result? 

You may ask who would benefit from the loan write-offs. The student loan cancelations’ significant beneficiaries would be wealthier students who took out loans to pay for their expensive graduate degrees. As Preston Cooper of Forbes explains, graduate borrowers will receive 80 percent of loan forgiveness benefits. Lower-income undergraduate students typically owe much less because they are eligible for pell grants at public universities and sometimes institutional grants at private ones. 

A study from the University of Chicago estimated that the top 10 percent of households by income would reap six times as much benefit from a $50,000 student loan cancelation as the bottom 10 percent.

Moreover, about two-thirds of people currently in the workforce did not graduate from college. Those with only high school diplomas typically earn 85 percent less than those with college degrees. But hold on: Isn’t it the Democratic Party that stands in solidarity with the less fortunate? Apparently not. Democrats would force working-class individuals who did not even go to college to subsidize the loans of disproportionally more affluent individuals who did. 

Not only is the policy regressive, but thousands of borrowers have already paid back their loans—in full. It is a slap in the face to those who responsibly paid back the debt they voluntarily took on.

This also sends a terrible message to young adults: they cannot and should not be responsible for their own finances. There is no worse life lesson to be taught than teaching people that other taxpayers will pick up the slack for their own irresponsible decisions. 

Progressives who discuss the issue rarely mention the fact that the government ruined tuition prices and student loans in the first place. The federal takeover of loans has exemplified a broad-scale push by the government to incentivize people to go to college, take out subsidized loans, and major in something where they do not learn life skills. Private-sourced loans generally have higher interest rates, and banks do not want to lend to incoming college students majoring in gender studies. This effectively means that the government is artificially driving up college costs because they have created more demand and not as much supply to keep up. 

Canceling student loan debt today would then make people question future loans. Many more students would then respond to the stimulus by taking out loans for themselves—expecting that this would not be the last cancelation. This exacerbates the problem by further increasing the demand for college, and therefore tuition prices and student loan debt along with it.

The issue is not just the fault of the government, either. Universities have continued to scam students by offering less income-driven degrees, which they know will be subsidized by the government. 

Progressives’ poorly thought-out solution to the problem takes away from legitimate policy proposals we should be considering to drive tuition prices down—policies such as the privatization of student loans. 

But if Democrats are so serious about this idea, they should put it up for a Senate vote today. They will not, and my guess for why is that even Mr. Schumer recognizes it is only popular among blue-checkmark progressive elites.

Mr. Nikfar is a Sophomore at Chapman University studying Pre-Pharmacy.

Student Loan Forgiveness Forgets Who Actually Foots the Bill

By Terry LaBan

By Kate Robinson

As college seniors across the country prepare for graduation in May, the age-old debate about student loan forgiveness is once again taking center stage.  And now, with a new president in office who has more than once pushed for making this a reality, it is worth noting the unendurable damage this policy would impose on our country.

Part of President Biden’s plan to help stimulate the economy includes canceling $10,000 of student loans per each borrower.  He positions this as a moderate idea, especially compared to progressives, such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, who support a cancellation of up to $50,000 in the form of an executive order by the president.  But when there are approximately “45 million student loan borrowers who collectively owe $1.7 trillion,” President Biden’s plan is anything but moderate. 

When the president wants to simply “cancel” student debt, the loan still needs to be paid back, so he is just shifting the debt to another citizen to pay off.  That is not fair.  The strength of our economy relies on the fundamental principle of borrowing and lending.  This process allows individuals to make investments that will lead to growth and has been the foundation of our country’s economic success for centuries.  Should the government (and its citizens) attempt to disrupt this process, there will be consequences, such as higher taxes. 

If all the Biden administration wants to do is help Americans in debt, it should come up with a plan to cancel the $9.6 trillion of mortgage loans, or credit card debt, that Americans are carrying. 

Maybe this plan is just a way for the president to appeal to the younger generation; however, in doing so, he completely disregards two key disadvantages of student-loan forgiveness.

First is the overall small economic impact that his proposal offers.  According to The Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget, student loan cancellation is “an ineffective form of stimulus [for the economy].”  If a person were to get his or her debt cancelled, he or she would only get the monthly interest and principal payments back, not a full check with the total loan owed.  

The Committee claims that the amount given back to the borrower is typically between $200 and $300 per month.  This is not only a small portion of total loan forgiveness, but it is also hardly enough to make a significant difference in someone’s life for the long term.

Moreover, his plan adds fuel to the fire of never-ending increases in college tuition.  Student loan forgiveness, at least under President Biden, essentially becomes free college for nearly 15 million loan borrowers.  A person receives money from the bank and never has to give it back.  The government seems to believe that this is necessary in order to incentivize people to attend college, but what it is failing to realize is that colleges and universities also benefit with higher tuition. 

In other words, “free” college increases the demand to attend, which allows schools to increase tuition.  Then, because cost is so high, people are forced to take out bigger loans, eventually causing taxes to go up (assuming a majority cannot pay back the money).  It is a never-ending cycle that will only continue to spiral out of control. 

I absolutely support students taking out loans for college if necessary.  But I am not in favor of people borrowing money and stealing fellow citizens’ hard-earned dollars only to be let off the hook with no penalty.

We are a capitalist society, and nothing comes free.  Someone is going to be tasked with paying for a stranger’s higher education, and it will likely be the person who worked hard to get a stable job, has smart money habits, or, worse, paid off his or her own student loans independently.  How is it fair to punish those who obey the rules of our economy? 

Unfortunately, student loan debt is a problem, mostly self-inflicted.  Our secondary education system should shoulder some of the blame, too.  The curriculum is weak in teaching students how to properly manage a budget or save money, and high school teachers and counselors excessively push students to attend college, even though there are many other options, like trade school, workforce, or military.

There are so many better ways to fix the broken cycle than to simply bail students out.  And I should think all new graduates, as future taxpayers, would agree.

Ms. Robinson is a freshman at Chapman University majoring in Strategic & Corporate Communication. She writes an opinion column for The Hesperian.