The conversion of Abby Johnson -- from one of the youngest Planned Parenthood clinic directors in America to pro-life leader -- sounds like the kind story line that would never make its way into the movie theater. But it has. "Unplanned" debuted in 1,059 theaters on March 29 and grossed $6.1 million on its opening weekend, double the commercial expectations. It received an A-plus CinemaScore from audiences. It has been expanded to 1,700 sites and is captivating millions with its heart-wrenching portrayal of the reality of abortion and the organization that champions the atrocity.
Johnson estimates she was personally responsible for overseeing 22,000 abortions at her clinic in Bryan, Texas, during her Planned Parenthood career. She had two of her own. This is her story, necessarily rated R because of its honest depiction of what transpires inside the Planned Parenthood clinic. The opening scene depicts the moment of conversion. Abby, who serves in a management capacity, is asked to assist with an ultrasound abortion of a 13-week-old baby. She watches -- and the viewer watches very real footage -- as the unborn baby resists, moving desperately to avoid the suction tube. It swooshes into the cylinder of death, exiting into a bucket with blood and pieces of human tissue. The womb is now empty. Abby Johnson falls apart.
We go to the start of the story, with her two abortions, her unlikely marriage into a strongly pro-life family and her rise of the ranks of her local Planned Parenthood outlet. She knows she has made it when director Cheryl ceremoniously invites her to come into the "P.O.C" room -- the clinic's sanctum sanctorum, open only to the chosen few. When a nurse asks if Abby knows what "P.O.C." stands for, she offers the euphemism "products of conception." Her colleague sardonically provides the correct answer: "pieces of children." Abby and Cheryl approach the table containing the body parts of countless babies. Little feet. Little hands. Little heads. The parts of every aborted child must be accounted for so they can be sure nothing is left inside the womb.
Unsurprisingly, "Unplanned" has received the same opprobrium from the cultural elites as last year's pro-life movie "Gosnell." A half dozen major music labels refused to license their tunes for the movie, including Disney, Universal Music and Sony/ATV. Cable TV networks refused to run ads for the movie -- USA, Lifetime, HGTV, the Travel Channel, the Cooking Channel, the Food Network ... even the Hallmark Channel!
The movie was trashed on TBS. Unfunny radical feminist Samantha Bee bizarrely claimed the movie was "mostly made up" and mocked it for suggesting that taking on the nation's largest and most powerful abortion conglomerate is scary.
Bee tried to suggest that Johnson couldn't possibly turn her heroes into monsters: "No matter where you go, no matter where you hide, I will give you health care!" Ripping babies apart is "health care."
Even social media giants were hostile. On the opening weekend, the movie's Twitter account was suspended for a time, which Twitter claimed was a mistake, as if anyone believes that line any longer. Then fans of the movie couldn't successfully follow the account. Twitter has a nasty habit of blocking pro-life material as "inflammatory."
Newspapers refused to review the movie. The New York Times reviewed 12 new movies on debut day, but not "Unplanned." This included a review of "Diane" (released in only three theaters nationwide), a liberal documentary on former Trump strategist Steve Bannon called "The Brink" (in four theaters) and the French Canadian teen comedy "Slut in a Good Way" (in seven theaters).
The Washington Post had no review from its own critics in the "Weekend" section but directed readers to its Common Sense Media page for parents, where those outside critics said the film was inappropriate for children under 17. This camp thinks abortion is appropriate for teenage girls but a movie about abortion is not.
Maybe this near silence is for the best, since one of the few film reviewers, Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter, thought he was being witty when he explained, "There have been films that treated Nazi doctors conducting evil experiments in concentration camps more sympathetically."
Scheck somehow can't absorb the fact that there is evil in Planned Parenthood, that it is a big business making a profit from exterminating more than 300,000 unborn babies a year.
Abby Johnson came to understand it and devoted her life to fighting the horror of abortion from that moment forward.
Her babies are in paradise, dancing with delight.
L. Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AT FGCU
Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) has established a Construction Management Department, offering a Bachelor of Science Degree in Construction Management. The program was introduced to the business community with a Day at the Ballpark on March 16th. The event was sponsored by REIS, Lee BIA, the CCIM Chapter, Realtors Land Institute (RLI), and FGCU. The Construction Management Department is part of the U.A. Whitaker College of Engineering at FGCU.
HEARING ON USE OF WETLANDS
The Lee County Board of County Commissioners has delayed the public hearing on land uses in wetlands until May 22nd. County staff has proposed an amendment (CPA1029-00001) to the Future Land Use Plan that will authorize Lee County to issue Development Orders for non-residential uses in the wetlands category where impacts are authorized by a State agency.
CAPE CORAL OVERHAULS LDC
Cape Coral City Council has approved a major rewrite of the Land Development Code (LDC), which now will be reviewed by State agencies. The changes are intended to make the LDC more consistent with zoning and facilitate commercial and multi-family residential development. The amended LDC may be reviewed on the City’s website, along with an interactive mapping tool to compare existing zoning with proposed zoning.
STATE LEGISLATION UPDATES
Home Rule: HB 3 would prohibit local governments from imposing or adopting new regulations of businesses after a certain date. Preempts regulation and licensing of professions and occupations to the state. Proceeding through committees with minor revisions.
Impact fees: HB 207/SB 144 would revise minimum requirements for adoption of impact fees by specified government agencies. Exempts water and sewer connection fees from Florida Impact Fee Act. Bill has passed all referred committees.
Open and Expired Building Permits: HB 447/SB 902 is moving through committees with much support - provides requirements related to open & expired permits, permit requirements, closing of permits, amendment of Florida Building Code, applicability, & notice requirements.
Wetlands Mitigation: CS/SB 532 authorizing a local government to allow permittee-responsible mitigation on lands purchased and owned by a local government for conservation purposes under certain circumstances; requiring such mitigation to meet specified requirements. Bill has passed the referred Senate committees.
Dredge and Fill Permitting: HB 799 urges Congress to direct U.S. EPA to issue memorandum of agreement so Florida may complete assumption of section 404 dredge & fill permitting program under federal Clean Water Act. On State Affairs Committee agenda April 8th. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: HB 6017 removes acreage limitations applying to small-scale comprehensive plan amendments. Bill is proceeding through House committees with strong support. Opportunity Zones: HB 481 would enable state and local governments to provide incentives to developers if they proceed with opportunity zone projects that benefit the local community. Bill is in committee review.
“PUBLIC LAW 414”
“In my opinion, and the opinion of the US Supreme Court, 414 clearly allows the President complete control of our Borders (Plenary power, as the Supreme Court has stated) when aliens attempt to enter the US, illegally, to do harm to the US economy as well as do physical damage thereto and to assault our Border Security men and women! Therefore, funding for enforcing 414 must be available lest the Law would be a useless piece of paper. In times of emergency, such as thousands assaulting our Border illegally, there must be funds available WITHOUT declaring a National Emergency or Disaster; keeping in mind the purpose of the funding is to enforce 414 which only requires a Proclamation and not even an EO, let alone the declaration of National Emergency! If the President believes fencing is necessary to enforce 414, then by law he certainly doesn’t need a Judge or Congress permission to do what the Constitution requires…”Protect, Preserve and defend” the Constitution on the US! Barriers stop/slow down people that is why militaries since before Christ have used barriers… to stop people!!!
Close the Border under the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Law (Public Law 414) by Proclamation only, until barricades can be built, only allowing in those with current legal access. (A request for asylum is not current legal basis for entry! Security of our Borders/Nation is much more important than asylum for anyone from any other country!)
THERE IS NO FEDERAL COURT IN THE US THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE THE ENACTMENT OF 414 UNLESS THE PRESIDENT ALLOWS IT…DON’T ALLOW IT…!!!”
Let them run to the 9th Circus and file, have DOJ fight it but ignore the Injunction and start building and keep building the fence. It is necessary for barriers in order to enforce PL 414! They cannot stop the enforcement of that law with any court orders!!! It can only be stopped if the President allows it to be stopped. That was Congress’s intent by making it Enforceable by Proclamation only without an EO, to avoid the “cumbersome interference of any Judicial Jurisdiction”!
When the President issues his Proclamation he is closing the Border and because of PL 414, and the Supreme Court Decisions specifying that the President has Plenary Power on Immigration and Naturalization…the President will not tolerate any attempts to interfere with his protecting the American people ! There is an emergency at the Border and he will do whatever it takes to protect America!
Should an injunction by the 9th Circus or any other Federal Jurisdiction be attempted; that would be Interference with a Duly Elected President Attempting to enforce a “Judicially Reinforced Action” and it would therefore be an intentional attempt to interfere with a sitting Presidents’ ability to carry out the “Lawful and Required Duty, of the President to Protect US Citizens”.
In my opinion, should any Federal Jurisdiction attempt to intervene in the President’s action he should direct DOJ to immediately issue arrest warrants for the Judge and the plaintiff filing for the injunction, have the Marshals bring the Judge and co-conspirator to WDC ,in cuffs for an appearance before a Judge for arraignment and request no bail as the Judge is a threat to the safety of US Citizens. Leave her in jail as long as possible and let it go through the system. When she finds out how expensive it is to, “ignore the Constitution in favor of radical, personal, agenda law making”, things will change in the 9th Circus, believe me ( most 9th Circus BS decisions are from female , activist, Judges and are reversed by the Supreme court)!
A filing Plaintiff should know that the President has the Power to defend our Borders and their plea of ignorance is no excuse for making a harassing filing. Put a serious effort to put a stop to that as well. Arrest the damn Judge and the filing Plaintiff!!! Why do you think 99% of the Federal Courts won’t touch INS issues?…because the SUPREME Court, of our beloved Nation, says so…Plenary Power!
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) will expire again on May 1st unless Congress approves another extension.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also announced updates to the program that would become effective next year.
The revised program becomes effective October 1, 2020 and property owners will learn the impact on their rates on April 1, 2020.
FEMA says cost of coverage will rely less on flood zones and use other variables, such as risk of hurricanes and coastal surges, and proximity to a source of flooding.
It may also consider new loss-estimation technology that can account for threats from climate change and replacement costs.
Are most Democrat politicians trying to destroy the Electoral College? It’s all the rage among the Democrat presidential wannabes – almost a required litmus test for candidacy. The Framers had good reasons to devise this system: it’s a linchpin in our “representative republic” government which prevents “mob rule” and protects the rights of all citizens, not just the majority; it’s an “extra set of eyes” on the presidential election process; and it gives assurance that a handful of states won’t select our President. I look at this as 51 (including D.C.) separate popular vote elections, the results of each indicate for which candidate the state will cast its electoral votes. It encourages coalitions and national campaigning.
Those are important topics, but my goal here is to increase the visibility of initiatives intended to subvert the electoral process without amending our U.S. Constitution. The most prominent one is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). This initiative intends to guarantee the candidate winning the national popular vote is elected. To achieve success, NPVIC must get states to enact legislation whereby states pledge all their electors to the national popular vote winner.
There are 538 electors so they must have the compact/agreement signed by states representing 270 electors. Only 14 states have agreed so far, but they already have 189 electors committed. If they tried to eliminate the Electoral College by Constitutional Amendment, it would require three-fourths of the states, or 38. So NPVIC seems much easier.
What if the plateau of 270 electors is reached? Are there any defensive measures to be taken? Here’s what Article 1 of our Constitution provides: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress……enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power……” That seems clear that they can’t do anything like NPVIC without the consent of Congress, but there’s significant disagreement about that among legal scholars. There’s sure to be a bitter and divisive Constitutional challenge if the 270-elector threshold is achieved.
And there’s a new challenge developing. Imagine a situation in which an important “swing state” decides to “go it alone” for pledging their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. This could be the case if there is sentiment among enough voters to join the “compact,” but they can’t depend on achieving that through successful legislation. Such is the case in Ohio. Opponents of the electoral process stand a good chance of having a voter initiative on the ballot in November which would amend the Ohio constitution to pledge Ohio electors to the national popular vote winner.
This Ohio initiative is distinct from NPVIC, and might be successful. And considering the broad latitude states have in allocating electors, it may be Constitutional. Toss in similar success in a few more “swing states” and the complexion of our presidential election process is changed forever. The Electoral College would be destroyed. Is this a bigger threat than NPVIC?
Discuss the Electoral College with your friends on the “left,” and ask them questions like: Do you reject the institution of the U.S. Senate since it does not proportionately represent the population? Since the Senate structure was set up to promote parity between the states rather than proportionate representation, do you minimize this original purpose of parity? Does your disdain for the Electoral College reflect your broader feelings about the representative form of government gifted us by our Founders? And, dear progressive friend, reflect back on 2004. George W. Bush received the most popular votes. Under NPVIC, California would have had to cast all their electoral votes for Bush, even though he lost the state to Kerry by a huge margin. Imagine the outrage that would have come from California Democrats.
That’s where we stand with these attacks on the electoral process. I’ve concluded destruction of the Electoral College is less than likely, but is seriously plausible. The Democrats’ goal isn’t about improving our election procedures or governance. It’s all about Democrats improving their chance of winning. Whatever the outcome of these attacks on our form of government, the finish-line is probably a long way off. Yet it feels like it’s right in front of us, looming dangerously. We must work against it.
Steve Bakke, Fort Myers
In the new Democratic Party, where women and people of color are to lead, and the white men are to stand back, the presidential field has begun to sort itself out somewhat problematically.
According to a Real Clear Politics average of five polls between mid-March and April 1, four white men -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, "Beto" O'Rourke and Pete Buttigieg -- have corralled 62 percent of all Democratic voters.
The three white women running -- Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand -- have, together, a piddling 8 percent.
The lone Hispanic candidate, Julian Castro, is at 1 percent.
African American candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker fare better, with Harris at 10 and Booker at 3.
Who has raised the most money from the most contributors?
Sanders is first with $18 million; Harris is next with $12 million; Beto is third with $9 million in 18 days; and "Mayor Pete" is fourth with $7 million.
Warren, Klobuchar and Gillibrand have yet to file reports.
But the big takeaway from recent weeks is the sudden stunning vulnerability of the front-runner. Seven women have come forward to berate Biden for unwanted and offensive touching and crowding. Joe is on the defensive. Some in the #MeToo movement want him gone.
He is also being slammed for decisions across his 36-year Senate career -- opposing busing for integration, deserting Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings, supporting a racially discriminatory crime bill, voting to authorize George W. Bush to take us into war in Iraq.
And unkindest cut of all: Barack Obama's stony silence about Joe's candidacy.
The most compelling case for the 76-year-old ex-vice president is that he can win back Trump's white working-class voters, and return Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the Democratic fold.
Thus a major drop in Biden's polls could be terminal to his candidacy.
If Biden can't guarantee a victory over Trump, why go with Joe?
Yet, if he fades away as a candidate, as he has done twice before, who emerges as front-runner? The 77-year-old Socialist Bernie Sanders. If Joe fades, Bernie and the comrades will have removed the last large roadblock to a socialist takeover of the national Democratic Party.
And what would then happen if the Democrats simply held the House, added three Senate seats and defeated Trump in 2020?
An all-out effort to abolish the Electoral College that is integral to the historic compromise that created our federal Union. Puerto Rico and D.C. would become states, giving Democrats four more Senators and making America a bilingual nation.
A drive would be on to give 16-year-olds and convicted felons the right to vote in federal elections, freezing Republicans out of power forever. A packing of the Supreme Court would begin by raising by six the number of justices and elevating liberal activists to the new seats.
On the southern border, where 100,000 illegal migrants were apprehended in March, Trump's wall would come down, all peoples fleeing repression in Central America would be welcomed into the U.S., sanctuary cities would become the norm, and ICE would be abolished.
Open borders would be a reality, along with amnesty for the 12 million-20 million people here illegally, with a path to citizenship for all.
It is impossible to see how the U.S. border would ever be secured.
The Green New Deal would be enacted. Medicare for all. Free tuition for college students. Millennial college debts paid off by the government. Free pre-K schooling and day care. Guaranteed jobs for all. A guaranteed living wage. Repeal of the Reagan and Trump tax cuts. A re-raising of the corporate rate and a return of the top rate for individuals to 70 percent. New wealth taxes on the rich.
With climate change seen as an existential planetary peril, fossil fuel-powered energy plants -- coal, oil, natural gas -- would be phased out and a new national reliance on solar and wind begun.
There would be reparations for slavery. Abortion on demand right up to birth for all women.
Marijuana would be legalized.
Harris has urged that prostitution, sex work, be legalized.
How would the Green New Deal be paid for?
Under "modern monetary theory," currency is a public monopoly for the government, and unemployment is evidence that the monopoly is choking off the needed supply. So print the money necessary to get to rising wages, full employment and a booming economy.
To achieve Bernie Sanders' Socialist America, the filibuster would have to be abolished, easily done, and the Constitution altered, requiring the support of three-fourths of the states, not so easy.
Yet, as of today, the unannounced front-runner Joe Biden, who is taking fire from many quarters, appears to be the last man standing between Sanders Socialism and the Democratic nomination.
Should Joe falter and fall, Trump would be the nation's last line of defense against the coming of a Socialist America. For never-Trump conservatives, the day of reckoning may be just ahead.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Dear Doctor: How does prostate cancer happen? And what are the symptoms? I'm only 43, but I worry that I wouldn't recognize the signs if I had it.
Dear Reader: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers among men in the United States. It occurs in the prostate gland, a male reproductive organ that sits between the penis and the rectum, just beneath the bladder. The prostate, which is about the size of a golf ball, wraps around the urethra, which is the duct through which urine and semen exit the body. One of the roles of the prostate is to produce fluids that nurture and support sperm, and to propel these fluids into the urethra when needed.
When normal cell division goes awry, the chaotic and uncontrolled growth that results is what we know as cancer. In prostate cancer, the rogue cells use hormones known as androgens, which include testosterone, to fuel their growth. Although prostate cancers begin within the gland, they can spread to nearby regions of the body, including the lymph nodes. Some prostate cancers are slow to grow and can take years to be detected. When slow-growing cancers are identified, the risk they pose may be low enough that physicians recommend careful monitoring, often referred to as "watchful waiting." Other prostate cancers are more aggressive and require swift treatment.
The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 174,650 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed this year, and the disease will claim more than 31,000 lives. As you allude to when mentioning your age, the majority of prostate cancers -- about 60 percent -- are diagnosed in men 65 and older. But race plays a role as well. Prostate cancer affects black men at two to three times the rate of white men and at an earlier age. They are also more likely to die from the disease.
Although a screening tool known as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is effective at detecting certain hormonal changes associated with prostate cancer, it has been overused in the past and led to unnecessary treatment. The U.S. Preventive Task Force recommends that for men between the ages of 55 to 69, prostate cancer screening should be a decision made by patients and doctors working together on a case-by-case basis. However, a survey of prostate cancer outcomes by several colleagues at UCLA determined that, due to their elevated risk, black men would benefit from prostate cancer screening guidelines tailored to their unique and specific needs.
When it comes to symptoms, unfortunately prostate cancer is often largely silent in the early stages. As the cancer becomes more advanced and affects the size and shape of the prostate, the gland's position in the body may lead to symptoms that include:
-- Difficulty urinating.
-- Frequent urination.
-- A diminished stream of urine.
-- Pelvic discomfort.
-- Signs of blood in the semen.
-- Onset of difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection.
-- Discomfort when sitting.
If you develop these symptoms, please talk to your doctor. It doesn't mean that you have cancer, but you will be taking the first step to finding out what, if anything, may be wrong.
Eve Glazier, M.D., MBA, and Elizabeth Ko, M.D
There are many good reasons to create a living trust. The most common reason is to shield your assets from the probate process. In other words, assets you place into a trust do not pass under your will. The Florida probate process–i.e. the part of your estate subject to your will–is a matter of public record. But trusts are generally private, so for the most part nobody outside of your family or any beneficiaries designated in the trust need to know anything about it.
But one thing that you need to keep in mind is that revocable living trusts, the type of trust most commonly used in estate planning, are not a magic shield that will protect your assets from creditors. Since assets in a living trust still remain effectively under your control–as you can revoke the trust at any point during your lifetime–your creditors can go after them. And you cannot use a trust to “hide” assets in the hopes they will not be discovered.
Florida Woman Faces Racketeering Claim After Allegedly Using Trust to Hide Assets from Husband's Creditor
A recent decision by a federal appeals court offers an example of what can go wrong when you do try to hide assets via estate planning. This particular case, Al-Rayes v. Willingham, involves a Florida couple who owe one of their creditors nearly $26 million. The original lawsuit, filed in 2006, alleged the husband of the couple defrauded the creditor “over the course of many real estate transactions,” according to court records. The creditor eventually obtained a $25.7 million judgment, of which he has only managed to collect roughly $40,000 in the intervening years.
The creditor filed the present lawsuit solely against the wife. He maintains the wife “conspired” with her husband to hide their assets in violation of federal racketeering laws. Among other acts, the creditor alleged that when the couple filed for bankruptcy–presumably, to obtain a discharge of the creditor's judgment–they failed to inform the court that the wife created a living trust and transferred their condo into it “while reserving a life estate in the condo for herself–and for her husband.”
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a trial judge's earlier ruling, said the creditor could proceed with his racketeering claims. Racketeering (or RICO) charges require proof of an “association-in-fact enterprise,” which the U.S. Supreme Court defines as a “group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” The appeals court said that even though the couple in this case had a preexisting personal relationship–their marriage–that did not prevent a finding that they formed an association-in-fact enterprise for purposes of defrauding the creditor out of his judgment.
This is admittedly an unusual case of someone allegedly going to great lengths to hide assets from a creditor. But the underlying message is still important. Trusts are not a tool for breaking the law or avoiding legitimate obligations. If you need further advice or guidance from a Fort Myers estate planning attorney on how to properly create and use trusts, contact the Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., at 239-333-4529 today.
The next advancement in cellular technology, 5G, is expected to be so fast that it’s able to surpass the speed of wired internet now provided by cable companies.
Current 4G technology provides download speeds of about 1 gigabit per second. With 5G technology, download speeds are expected to increase to 20 gigabits per second, said Ellen M. Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment.
Lord spoke yesterday at the Atlantic Council here to discuss the Defense Department’s efforts to advance 5G technology in the United States and to ensure that when 5G does make its debut, it’s secure enough to transmit information between U.S. military personnel and its allies without being intercepted by potential adversaries.
U.S. and Allies Must Take Lead
That means the U.S. and its allies will need to take the lead in developing this next generation of telecommunications technology, she said.
“When we talk about 5G, everything is going to be moving over it, eventually,” Lord said. “What we need to do is make sure how that information is moving, and how you can get at it, and how you can keep it secure.”
Lord likened development of the 5G infrastructure and technology to that of a new home. She said new home owners certainly would want to know that whoever built their home, wired it for electricity, installed the communications systems, or installed the doors and windows hadn’t also built in a way for them to sneak back into that house undetected after the new owners had moved in.
“That’s where we are with 5G,” Lord said. “If we are going to run our entire warfighting ecosystem though communications -- which is where we are today -- we need to make sure that when we send a critical message that others aren’t hearing it. We need to be able to test that.”
On the modern battlefield, and on the battlefield of the foreseeable future, communications is going to play a critical role, Lord said. Information must flow between mounted and dismounted soldiers, from ships at sea and from those under the sea, as well as to space and aircraft.
“In order to get relevant situational understanding, we are trading information back and forth all the time,” she said. “What will happen is, if we do not embrace 5G, and we are just getting going in 4G in a lot of areas, we are going to have a latency or a delay in those conversations that could render everything we have as ineffective.”
U.S. Industry and Partners Must Provide Advancements
Advancements in 5G must come from U.S. industry and U.S. partners to be trustworthy and reliable, Lord said.
“Right now there is quite an intensive dialogue going on to understand where in Europe we might partner,” Lord said. “And there has been an enormous amount of discussion about the threat that we see by the Chinese -- theft of intellectual property -- coming into our networks. We have to collectively decide how we are technically going to secure our networks — how we legislatively have to have protection.”
Lord said a whole-of-government approach is needed to get a handle on 5G. The State, Treasury and Commerce departments and the National Security Council should be involved along with DOD, she said.
“I think you are going to see a huge call to action this year to come together with really what is almost a national industrial policy for 5G, because the stakes are high,” Lord added. “5G from a technology point of view is a huge opportunity, but it’s a huge threat.
“If we don’t embrace it and apply it towards our goals, we could be overcome quickly with technical overmatch,” she continued. “And we can’t allow that to happen. ... We have a warfighting imperative. If we cannot communicate as quickly, or quicker than our adversaries, if we cannot have situational understanding as to what is happening on the battlefield, then we are going to be in a position where our national security is threatened.”
February’s “Black History Month” has come and gone and now the 51st anniversary of Martin Luther King’s tragic assassination is upon us once again.
For me and many who were “coming of age” when King was actually making a difference, every year on Kings birthday, and on the anniversary of his death, we remember, what a “big deal” he was.
Recalling King’s death on April 4, 1968 always reminds me of that watershed year with its assassinations of both he and Bobby Kennedy. It was the year I graduated from Luther College in Iowa, married Lois, and was drafted into the Army. And remember the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago that year? I also passed the CPA exam that November which, at the time, seemed to fit right in with all my other worries and concerns.
What got me thinking anew this year was reading comments by a black Dickenson College (Pennsylvania) student in their student newspaper: “I cannot describe how frustrating it is to be forced to listen to a white boy explain his take on the Black experience……[in] honor of Black History Month……white boys” should be shut up.
These comments started me thinking once again. Some of King’s legacy seems to be struggling to survive in today’s world. As examples, I often site the ever-growing segregation/separation on college campuses – separate living, study areas, and courses – apparently encouraged by minority groups themselves. Whatever happened to King’s dream of condemning enforced separateness and judgements based on one’s skin color?
During the last few years, I’ve been publicly expressing my thoughts about Martin Luther King, my appreciative admiration for him, and what he meant to me and many other white citizens of my generation. This student clearly doesn’t want me commenting about King and his influence on me. Perhaps I should know better than to express my feelings so publicly because I almost always encounter criticism and opposition. I never come away unscathed.
Consider these examples of “pushback” against me personally:
• A letter writer in another newspaper suggested my attempts at “MLK-like racial de-emphasis” relieves me of “my obligation to address important racial differences and difficulties” and permits me to “engage in highly racialized practices.” Ouch!
• A social media reply pointed out that whether I “see color” or not, I’m racist either way. That reaction didn’t advance the debate very far.
• Another social media comment expressed the belief that I was missing the point because the segregation I see cropping up in America isn’t the type of thing King was fighting against.
That may be partially true, but I don’t believe King would be very happy with some of today’s progressive tactics of identity politics and enforced segregation.
• And another editorial letter stated that one of my columns “couldn’t have been more misguided.” As with some other of my newfound critics, I was accused of promoting “color-blindness” which they say is a form of micro aggression, among other things.
The dignity of King’s methods compelled me to respect him and listen. I suggest to these critics that minimizing and even denying ways in which King redirected the attitudes of white people, is to diminish him. While aggressively advocating for social justice, King spoke in a way that could both motivate his minority constituency, and help white America understand his peaceful methods and transformative goals. Social justice was his vision for the future. Making friends with white America wasn’t his objective – merely an important by-product.
King’s message to me personally was about “getting out of the way” in terms of segregation and opportunity. Hence my attempts at de-emphasizing, but not ignoring, racial and cultural differences. With those same words King spoke to the oppressed about social justice, began leading them in dealing with it, and gave them hope by proclaiming he had seen the “promised land.”
I believe King would be disappointed with the recent surge in identity politics, enforced separation, and the tendency to deemphasize immigrant assimilation. How could he be happy with the way political correctness has divided us and tied us in knots?
Challenges to my opinions encourage me to examine my original comments and ideas. Additional comments by me provide clarity, which hopefully strengthens mutual understanding with readers. I’m trying to remind people what Martin Luther King meant to white Americans, and how people of all races might be letting him down.