Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, December 16, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

1 David Yakobson
From: Arthur Jeon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 4:37 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; Jeanette Gant; Micah Akerson; Erika Aklufi; Danielle Noble; Ramon Batista; [email protected]; Roberto Lucio; Thomas McLaughlin; Jose Rodriguez; Annette Farmer; Maryanne LaGuardia; Albin Gielicz; Alisha Brady; [email protected]; Arati Desai Wagabaza; Lori Brown; John Smith; John Alle; Evan Meyer; [email protected]; Luke Cain; Peter Bosen; [email protected]; Elaine Golden-Gealer; Eric Sedman; Michele Aronson; Aisling Winders; Julia Ladd; Peter TRINH; Anuj Gupta; [email protected]; dominic gomez; Jenna Grigsby; Attorney Mailbox; Shawn R. Kehoe; Andrew Thomas (Downtown Santa Monica); SMDP Editor; Susan Cline; Third District; Michele A Wittig; [email protected]; Attorney Mailbox; Joe; Jenny Rush; Stan Epstein; Gary Tsai; [email protected]; Zina Josephs; Leah; Phil Brock; Lauren Howland; [email protected]; Matthew Hall; Richard Drapkin; [email protected]; Planning Commission Comments; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Dan Charn.; [email protected]; Gerardo Leyva; Carlos Jaen; Brandon Capiro; Kelly Simon; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Jing Yeo; [email protected]; Scott McGee; Gerardo Leyva; Ryan Gradle; Roy Brown; Frank Marnell; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kim Pieper; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert Coleman; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alyssa G; [email protected]; Lewis Gilmour; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: A Rise of Civic Engagement

EXTERNAL
Dear Residents of Santa Monica,
When the train finished in 2016, our lives near 9th and Wilshire changed completely. For almost a decade I’ve written about the decline of the downtown area, being attacked by addicts, cleaning human feces out of our condo's carports, and witnessing a skid row reality take over my local Reed Park. I’ve become a crank to myself, trying to sound the alarm about a disintegrating city right before my eyes. Before my work responsibilities buried that impulse, I even ran for council because SMRR was so apathetic to the suffering individuals zombie-walking through our neighborhood, a never-ending tide of need, mental illness, and addiction, who were endlessly victimizing residents. All enabled by a council that was downright hostile to the idea of enforcement.

As anybody who lives in the neighborhoods ringing downtown well knows, we have been under siege for years, and ignored by a council that would either gaslight, stonewall, or call us heartless. Gleam Davis, former mayor, told me to my face we couldn’t have police on the promenade because it would make “some of our constituents” uncomfortable (really, like criminals?). Mayor Sue had the same antienforcement ideology. And our new mayor, Caroline Torosis, the same: she decided that after we were mercilessly looted, and our police were told to stand down, that she needed to create a “police oversight Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
2 committee.” Yeah, our police were too brutal in watching our city get destroyed. She too (with Hall, Zwick, et all) thinks that all we need is more housing to tackle this problem, when actually we need involuntary holds of the drug addicted, and institutionalization for the severely mentally ill who couldn’t manage an apartment if they were given one. And non-stop arrests for public disorder, drug use, and other “minor” crimes affecting our quality of life, which snag wanted felons daily. Sure, as a society we owe people help, but we don’t owe them an ocean view. And “housing first” for the chronically homeless, while sounding good, has been declared a failure from coast to coast. Wake up LA County.

And wake up Santa Monica if they don’t.

But this is old news. Because honestly, the residents are as responsible as the people they've elected.

It’s understandable human nature, but you too have ignored it because it didn’t affect your every day life.

You could go to Montana Ave, undergoing a bustling renaissance. Or Abbott Kinney, which is everything the promenade is not: local, cool, filled with restaurants and community. We all went to Palisades Village before it burned, or the Grove, or even Century City, all somehow miraculously "recovered from covid.” (Funny, everybody else is recovered from Covid, while all that we’ve done is cement our reputation for the looting destruction, and now disorder and crime, without acknowledging that’s the problem). This is unfair, of course, seeing reality through a straw, but if you witness what I witness every day, that straw is a firehose. Yesterday, walking down Wilshire Blvd at dusk I had to dodge 5 screaming and thrashing street people in either the throes of madness or addiction. All screamed and made threatening gestures. It was a gauntlet.

So I’m hopeful by the reaction of the neighborhood adjacent to the only functioning and (relatively) addict-free Palisades park when it was suddenly threatened by two open door shelters for extremely sick people. Suddenly, the relatively insulated residents of NOMO were awakened to the threat of disorder and danger that we've been living with for a decade, and they roared awake with NOMA meetings, lawsuit threats, and well-placed calls to those in power in the county, (which seems to have it in for Santa Monica, shoving every failed policy, like free needles, down our throats). I watched the entire NOMA meeting with the county officials pushing this plan and residents were rightly FURIOUS and gave it to them good. Well done! I welcome you to the party!
There has also been a huge outcry about the Civic Center. AS THERE SHOULD BE. Northeast Neighbors grilled Oliver Chi about it during their recent meeting, with the indomitable Tricia Crane presiding.

What I’m seeing is the awakening of the silent majority in this town that just wants clean, safe, streets, and the ability to use their parks. They want a governance that has common sense, is honest (talking to you Mayor Torosis), is resident-focused, and not trying to solve every problem LA has. Or single-handedly trying to solve the national housing crisis while destroying what makes Santa Monica special. I’ll say it again: we are one of the densest cities in LA County. We have defacto affordable housing because 70% of are residents are renters, and half of them are protected by rent control. SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE DO HAVE, which is a train that mainlines sick people to our town, and a shelter that embeds them in our tourism district. Our model for a council member should be Lana Negrete or Phil Brock—passionate advocates for SANTA MONICA who are uninterested in virtue signaling to the far left ideology that funds endless homeless industrial complex boondoggles. But are very interested in Santa Monica. District elections will help, if that comes to pass.

To be fair, there are signs of hope. The council hired Oliver Chi, who seems like he gets it. Credit where credit is due, as Oliver is at least vocalizing the number one issue residents have been talking about for years. Oliver seems to understand that the disorder and mayhem downtown has got to be reversed OR Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
3 WE WILL NEVER RETURN TO OUR PAST GLORY. Because what business is going to invest in a scary ghost town? Oliver’s not only put cops downtown, but is building a police substation on the promenade (sorry Gleam). He also seems to understand that saving the Civic should be a priority, and that a thriving city filled with creatives needs these outlets. He’s promising to move SamoShel. We are litigating the remaining pedo lawsuits.

Whether Oliver is just another tool for developers wrapped in new language, or whether the council has truly and finally woken up to reality, remains to be seen. I will be a believer when the shelter is shut down, but I am, despite my experience, optimistic. It will require focusing all our energies on saving Santa Monica. Because we are drowning.

Finally, as far as I can see, the alcohol on the promenade gambit has been a flop–I’m there all the time and nobody is walking around with a drink in their hands. And it hasn’t helped the crowds. And the wraparound, time square digital advertising is a desperate and TERRIBLE idea. Ubiquitous digital advertising is NOT our brand, and should be shut down immediately because that’s not WHY people come here.

Council, please show us that you understand what makes us special, because nobody wants Santa Monica to compete with Times Square. And everybody needs a break from their screens and advertising overload. Show us you know people want to go to the beach, eat at a restaurant, get away from hot and crowded city living, all without seeing a person with their pants around their ankles while coming and going.

If all this seems like obvious common sense, history shows it won’t arrive by magic. It will take all of us leaning in, putting the oxygen mask on ourselves first, and reversing the doom spiral to restore our once bustling and thriving city. Get involved. Stay involved. And put pressure on this council to continue their turn to reality. Because, no Gleam, the people coming to Santa Monica to grift, do drugs, predate on our community are not “residents.” And no, SMRR, housing first isn’t the answer.

Summer is coming. And so will the homeless addicts and mentally ill. We need to take out every welcome mat, and have an aggressive broken windows policy toward people that want to bring skid row with them.

Arthur Jeon
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Visionary Leaders in Action Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Michael Jung
Subject: Public Comment - Santa Monica Entertainment District on the Third Street Promenade

EXTERNAL
Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers, City Staff and Community Members, We are here representing the Coalitions Of the Responsible Alcohol Delivery Program, Westside Impact Project and the Visionary Leaders in Action in association with the Institute for Public Strategies, where we provide community-based prevention and education throughout Santa Monica and the Westside.

We are here today to express our support for a potential Alcohol Education Campaign in the Entertainment District on the Third Street Promenade. Creating a vibrant, welcoming, and safe environment for residents and visitors is incredibly important, and this district has the potential to do just that.

As the District moves forward, We also want to highlight an opportunity to strengthen community wellbeing by integrating responsible drinking education into this space. Our team would be happy to partner with the City, local businesses, and Promenade stakeholders to provide:
 Information for patrons about drinking responsibly
 Materials on recognizing and preventing binge drinking  Tips on how alcohol impacts judgment, coordination, and safety  Awareness about safe transportation options and avoiding impaired driving  Resources for young adults and families who visit the Promenade This type of outreach complements the City’s goals of safety, economic vitality, and positive community engagement. It also helps ensure that as we expand entertainment opportunities, we are equally investing in risk-reduction and public health education. We are available to provide information about the Responsible Drinking Campaign to the full council.

We look forward to being a partner in promoting a safe, fun, and healthy experience for everyone in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
In Community,
Westside Impact Project/Responsible Alcohol Delivery Project - Michael Jung Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
2 Westside Next-Gen Project/Visionary Leaders in Action - Gabriel Hill Los Angeles County
Phone: (310) 215-9924 x144
Email: [email protected]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

View our 2023 Impact Report!
Get our Newsletter for the Latest from IPS.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Michael Jung <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment - Request to Table at Santa Monica Entertainment District on the Third Street Promenade (No Agenda Item)

EXTERNAL
Good evening Mayor, Council, and City staff,
My name is Michael Jung, and I’m here on behalf of the Institute for Public Strategies, a public health nonprofit that has served Santa Monica and the greater Westside since 1991.

I want to express our strong support for the Entertainment Zone on Third Street Promenade. From our perspective, the Entertainment Zone has boosted community engagement and enhanced public safety in a meaningful and measurable way. The combination of designated boundaries, clear signage, and on-site security has created a safe and well-regulated environment where the community and visitors can enjoy themselves while businesses thrive. The cooperation we’ve seen from bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, especially around compliance and responsible service, demonstrates that the implementation of the Entertainment Zone is both effective and well-managed.

As a public health organization focused on reducing alcohol-related harms, we believe the Entertainment Zone helps prevent unsafe drinking behaviors by keeping alcohol consumption confined to a monitored space, reducing the likelihood of overserving and reducing risky alcohol-related behaviors and activities outside the controlled area. When systems like the Entertainment Zone are in place and continue to be maintained with proper staffing and signage, they contribute to fewer incidents and a safer nightlife environment overall.

Because of this alignment between public enjoyment and public safety, we strongly encourage the city to contribute and retain the Entertainment Zone at Third Street Promenade.

Additionally, we would like to explore the opportunity to have our public health agency table within the Entertainment Zone. Our goal is to provide engaging, evidence-based education on responsible drinking, the dangers of binge drinking, and ways to stay safe when alcohol is involved, especially when driving. We use interactive games, quick activities, and accessible resource materials to inform community members without interrupting their experience. We view this as a partnership that supports the City’s goals around safety, wellness, and community activation.

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining a vibrant and safe Entertainment Zone, and for considering our support and interest in collaborating.

Best,
Michael
Michael Jung, (he/him/his)
Program Manager
Institute For Public Strategies | Los Angeles County
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
2 (310) 215-9924 x137
[email protected]
➤ View our NEW 2024 Impact Report!
➤ If You Encounter ICE: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
➤ Get our Newsletter for the Latest from IPS.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: WsideImpact <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment - Request to Table at Santa Monica Entertainment District on the Third Street Promenade (No Agenda Item)

EXTERNAL
Good evening Mayor, Council, and City staff,
We’re here on behalf of the Westside Impact Project Coalition, a community-based coalition that reduces substance-related harms through education and advocacy in Santa Monica and the greater Westside.

We want to express our strong support for the Entertainment Zone on Third Street Promenade. From our perspective, the Entertainment Zone has boosted community engagement and enhanced public safety in a meaningful and measurable way. The combination of designated boundaries, clear signage, and on-site security has created a safe and well-regulated environment where the community and visitors can enjoy themselves while businesses thrive. The cooperation we’ve seen from bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, especially around compliance and responsible service, demonstrates that the implementation of the Entertainment Zone is both effective and well-managed.

As a substance prevention coalition focused on reducing alcohol-related harms, we believe the Entertainment Zone helps prevent unsafe drinking behaviors by keeping alcohol consumption confined to a monitored space, reducing the likelihood of overserving and reducing risky alcohol-related behaviors and activities outside the controlled area. When systems like the Entertainment Zone are in place and continue to be maintained with proper staffing and signage, they contribute to fewer incidents and a safer nightlife environment overall.

Because of this alignment between public enjoyment and public safety, we strongly encourage the city to contribute and retain the Entertainment Zone at Third Street Promenade.

Additionally, we would like to explore the opportunity to join Institute for Public Strategies and Visionary Leaders in Action (who both provided their respective public comments) to table within the Entertainment Zone.

Our goal is to provide engaging, evidence-based education on responsible drinking, the dangers of binge drinking, and ways to stay safe when alcohol is involved, especially when driving. We use interactive games, quick activities, and accessible resource materials to inform community members without interrupting their experience. We view this as a partnership that supports the City’s goals around safety, wellness, and community activation.

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining a vibrant and safe Entertainment Zone, and for considering our support and interest in collaborating.

Best,
Michael Jung (he/him/his/el)
Ryan Factora (he/they)
Co-Chairs, Westside Impact Project Coalition
[email protected]| [email protected] Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
4 (310) 215-9924 x137 | (310) 215-9924 x159
https://ipsresources.squarespace.com/westside-impact
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Law enforcement corruption and lack of accountability in regards to illegal alien foreign national immigrants

EXTERNAL
Law enforcement corruption and lack of accountability in regards to illegal alien foreign national immigrants
Police Corruption and Misconduct, History, Contemporary Problems, Further Readings

The violation of state and federal laws or the violation of individuals' constitutional rights by police officers; also when police commit crimes for personal gain.

Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is "procedural" when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; "criminal" when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; "unconstitutional" when it refers to police who violate a citizen's CIVIL RIGHTS; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical or DEADLY FORCE, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.

Police corruption is the abuse of police authority for personal gain. Corruption may involve profit or another type of material benefit gained illegally as a consequence of the officer's authority. Typical forms of corruption include BRIBERY, EXTORTION, receiving or fencing stolen goods, and selling drugs. The term also refers to patterns of misconduct within a given police department or special unit, particularly where offenses are repeated with the acquiescence of superiors or through other ongoing failure to correct them.

Safeguards against police misconduct exist throughout the law. Police departments themselves establish codes of conduct, train new recruits, and investigate and discipline officers, sometimes in cooperation with civilian complaint review boards which are intended to provide independent evaluative and remedial advice. Protections are also found in state law, which permits victims to sue police for damages in civil actions. Typically, these actions are brought for claims such as the use of excessive force ("police brutality"), false arrest and imprisonment, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, and WRONGFUL DEATH. State actions may be brought simultaneously with additional claims for constitutional violations.

Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).

Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.

Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
4 Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere NEGLIGENCE or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.

Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This IMMUNITY is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear of REPRISAL. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).

https://law.jrank.org/pages/9248/Police-Corruption-Misconduct.html

Police Corruption
Police Corruption
Police Corruption Analysis
Police corruption is a complex phenomenon, which does not readily submit to simple analysis. It is a problem that has and will continue to affect us all, whether we are civilians or law enforcement officers.

Since its beginnings, many aspects of policing have changed; however, one aspect that has remained relatively unchanged is the existence of corruption.

An examination of a local newspaper or any police-related publication on any given day will have an article about a police officer that got busted committing some kind of corrupt act.

The danger of corruption for police, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to “the use of organizational power to encourage and create crime rather than to deter it” (Sherman 1978: p 31) General police deviance can include brutality, discrimination, sexual harassment, intimidation, and illicit use of weapons. However, it is not particularly obvious where brutality, discrimination, and misconduct end and corruption begin.

Essentially, police corruption falls into two major categories– external corruption which concerns police contacts with the public, and internal corruption, which involves the relationships among policemen within the works of the police department.

The external corruption generally consists of one or more of the following activities: 1) Payoffs to police by essentially non-criminal elements who fail to comply with stringent statutes or city ordinances; (for example, individuals who repeatedly violate traffic laws). 2) Payoffs to police by individuals who continually violate the law as a method of making money (for example, prostitutes, narcotics addicts and pushers, & professional burglars). 3) “Clean Graft” where money is paid to police for services, or where courtesy discounts are given as a matter of course to the police. “Police officers have been involved in activities such as extortion of money and/or narcotics from narcotics violators to avoid arrest; they have accepted bribes; they have sold narcotics. They have known of narcotics violations and have failed to take proper enforcement action. They have entered into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in some cases have used narcotics.

They have given false testimony in court in order to obtain dismissal of the charges against a defendant.” (Sherman 1978: p 129) A scandal is perceived both as a socially constructed phenomenon and as an agent of change that can lead to realignments in the structure of power within organizations.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
5 Police Corruption
“Cops don’t want to turn in other cops,” he said. “Cops don’t want to be a rat.” And even when honest cops are willing to blow the whistle, there may not be anyone willing to listen. (New York Times, Mar. 29, 1993: p. 14) Is there a solution to the police corruption problem? Probably not because since its beginnings, many aspects of policing have changed, but one thing that has not is the existence of corruption. Police agencies, in an attempt to eliminate corruption have tried everything from increasing salaries, requiring more training and education, and developing polices which are intended to focus directly on factors leading to corruption. What have all these changes done to eliminate or even decrease the corruption problem? Little or nothing. Despite police departments’ attempts to control corruption, it still occurs.

Regardless of the fact, police corruption cannot simply be over looked. Controlling corruption is the only way that we can really limit corruption, because corruption is the by-product of the individual police officer, societal views, and, police environmental factors. Therefore, control must come from not only the police department, but also must require the assistance and support of the community members.

Controlling corruption from the departmental level requires a strong leadership organization, because corruption can take place anywhere from the patrol officer to the chief. The top administrator must make it clear from the start that he and the other members of the department are against any form of corrupt activity, and that it will not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. If a police administrator does not act strongly with disciplinary action against any corrupt activity, the message conveyed to other officers within the department will not be that of intimated nature.

In addition, it may even increase corruption, because officers feel no actions will be taken against them. Another way that police agencies can control its corruption problem starts originally in the academy. Ethical decisions and behavior should be promoted, because failing to do make officers aware of the consequences of corruption does nothing but encourages it.

Bad Cops
It’s hard to prosecute police officers. There are two main reasons for this: The first is the special deference that jurors, judges, and prosecutors show officers thanks to the widespread perception that they are heroic public figures valiantly trying to protect us.

The second is the bevy of special laws around the country that are designed to shield police officers from the very tactics the police regularly use on ordinary suspects. For example, in most states, law enforcement officers cannot be questioned until they have been given a few days to get their stories straight. These two factors can make convicting police officers extremely difficult, and it is no accident; it is the direct result of the sustained effort by police unions to protect officers from even the most deserved discipline or prosecution.

Finally, many police departments, especially large ones, have an Internal Affairs unit that operates to investigate improper conduct of police departments.

Although the police agency should be the main source of controlling its own corruption problem, it also requires some support and assistance from the local community. It is important that the public be educated about the negative effects of corruption on their police agency. They should be taught that even ‘graduates’ (the most basic and common form of police corruption) is only a catalyst for more and future corruption.

The community may even go as far as establishing review boards, and investigative bodies to help keep a careful eye on the agency. If we do not act to try and control it, the costs can be enormous, because it affects not only the individual, his department, the law enforcement community as a whole, but society as well. Police corruption can be controlled; it just takes a little extra effort. And In the long run, that effort will be well worth it to both the agency and the community.

The powers given by the state to the police to use force have always caused concern. Although improvements have been made to control corruption, numerous opportunities exist for deviant and corrupt practices. The opportunity to acquire power in excess of that which is legally permitted or to misuse power is always available.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
6 As mentioned from the very beginning of this report the problem of police deviance and corruption will never be completely solved, just as the police will never be able to solve the crime problem in our society. One step in the right direction, however, is the monitoring and control of the police and the appropriate use of police style to enforce laws and to provide service to the public.
https://policecrimes.com/police-corruption/

https://policestateusa.com/

Foreign Agents Registration Act
About
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA requires certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of FARA.

Public information relating to FARA may be obtained in person at the FARA Unit Public Office located at:

Department of Justice/NSD
FARA Unit
175 N Street, NE
Constitution Square, Building 3 - Room 1.204
Washington DC 20002
Hours of Operation:

Public Office: Monday - Friday, 11:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Deliveries: Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Email: [email protected]

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10499.pdf

8 USC 1325: Improper entry by alienText contains those laws in effect on August 24, 2025 From Title 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12-IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITYSUBCHAPTER IIIMMIGRATIONPart VIII-General Penalty Provisions Jump To:Source CreditMiscellaneousAmendmentsEffective Date §1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty ofItem 1 December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
7 (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both. (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, §275, 66 Stat. 229 ; Pub. L. 99–639, §2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542 ; Pub. L. 101–649, title I, §121(b)(3), title V, §543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4994 , 5059; Pub. L. 102– 232, title III, §306(c)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1752 ; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title I, §105(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–556 .)
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1996-Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 104–208 added subsec. (b) and redesignated former subsecs. (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), respectively.
1991-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–232 substituted "fined under title 18" for "fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 18)".
1990-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–649, §543(b)(2), inserted "or attempts to enter" after "(1) enters" and "attempts to enter or" after "or (3)", and substituted "shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 18) or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years" for "shall, for the first commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both, and for a subsequent commission of any such offenses shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–649, §121(b)(3), added subsec. (c). 1986-Pub. L. 99–639 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
8 Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title I, §105(b), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–556 , provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to illegal entries or attempts to enter occurring on or after the first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996]." Effective Date of 1991 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 102–232 effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101– 649, see section 310(1) of Pub. L. 102–232, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Amendment by section 121(b)(3) of Pub. L. 101–649 effective Oct. 1, 1991, and applicable beginning with fiscal year 1992, see section 161(a) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Amendment by section 543(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101–649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990, see section 543(c) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1221 of this title.

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1325

8 USC 1327: Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enterText contains those laws in effect on August 24, 2025 From Title 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12-IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITYSUBCHAPTER IIIMMIGRATIONPart VIII-General Penalty Provisions Jump To:Source CreditMiscellaneousAmendmentsEffective Date §1327. Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter
Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2) (insofar as an alien inadmissible under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof) of this title to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, §277, 66 Stat. 229 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7346(a), (c)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4471 ; Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §543(b)(4), title VI, §603(a)(16), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5059 , 5084; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §308(d)(3)(A), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–617 .) Editorial Notes
Amendments
1996-Pub. L. 104–208 substituted "inadmissible" for "excludable" in two places. 1990-Pub. L. 101–649, §603(a)(16), substituted "1182(a)(2) (insofar as an alien excludable under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof)" for "1182(a)(9), (10), (23) (insofar as an alien excludable under any such paragraph has in addition been convicted of an aggravated felony), (27), (28), or (29)".

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
9 Pub. L. 101–649, §543(b)(4), substituted "shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years" for "shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years".
1988-Pub. L. 100–690 substituted "certain aliens" for "subversive alien" in section catchline and inserted "(9), (10), (23) (insofar as an alien excludable under any such paragraph has in addition been convicted of an aggravated felony)," after "1182(a)".

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–208 effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Amendment by section 543(b)(4) of Pub. L. 101–649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990, see section 543(c) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1221 of this title.

Amendment by section 603(a)(16) of Pub. L. 101–649 applicable to individuals entering United States on or after June 1, 1991, see section 601(e)(1) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7346(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4471 , provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to any aid or assistance which occurs on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 18, 1988]."
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1327

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry,
Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration
Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud,
Commercial Enterprise Fraud
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

Comment: Further discussion of these offenses is set forth in Chapter 4 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
10 [cited in JM 9-73.200]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1911-8-usc-1325-unlawful-entry-failure-departfleeing-immigration

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1912. 8 U.S.C. 1326 -- Reentry After
Deportation (Removal)
After the amendments made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), subsection 1326(a) now makes it an offense for any alien who has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation or removal is outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in the United States, unless prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's for admission, or such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under the Immigration and Nationality Act or any prior Act.

The basic statutory maximum penalty for reentry after deportation is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. However, with regard to an alien whose "removal" was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), the statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. Moreover, if deportation was subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years.

Although subsection 1326(a) now refers to any alien who has been "denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding," subsections 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2), relating to aliens with prior criminal convictions, refer only to aliens "whose removal was subsequent to a conviction." Read together, subsections 1326 (a) and (b) appear to suggest that the term "removal" in subsections 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) includes the terms "denied admission," "excluded ," "deported," "removed," and "departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding," as set forth in subsection 1326(a). Section 309(d) of the IIRIRA seems to support this conclusion, providing "any reference in law to an order of exclusion and deportation or an order of deportation." Nevertheless, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 does not define "removal," nor does do subsections 1326(b)(1) and (2) specifically provide that removal is synonymous with "denied admission," "excluded ," "deported," and "departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding." In view of this apparent uncertainty, some United States Attorneys expressed concern that, for example, that a criminal alien prosecuted under § 1326(b) might argue that he is not subject to enhanced punishment because he had been "deported," not "removed." To foreclose possible litigation in this area, the Department is considering proposing a technical amendment whereby the language in subsections 1326(b)(1) and (2) would track the language in subsection 1326(a). [cited in JM 9-73.200] [updated September 2008]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-after-deportation-removal

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
11 1914. 8 U.S.C. 1328 -- Importing Aliens
For Immoral Purposes
Section 1328 prohibits three kinds of sexual activities with respect to aliens: (1) importing aliens for prostitution, (2) holding aliens for prostitution, and (3) keeping, maintaining, controlling, supporting, employing, or harboring aliens for prostitution. Each of the three is a separate crime. See Dalton v. Hunter, 174 F.2d 633 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 906 (1949).

The phrase, "in pursuance of such illegal importation," was added to § 1328 in 1910 to establish an interstate commerce nexus because the Supreme Court had held that the statute infringed on state police powers. See Keller v.

United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909). Also, "alien" was substituted for "woman or girl" to make it clear that the statute applied to both sexes. The phrase, "or for any other immoral purpose," probably includes only immoral purposes relating to sex, and not, for example, the selling of babies. See United States v. Baker, 136 F. Supp. 546, 549-550 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).

For a definition of "hold" see United States v. Giuliani, 147 F. 594, 596, 600 (D.Del. 1906). See also 18 U.S.C. § 2424, which provides penalties for failure to register a female brought to the United States from certain countries for immoral purposes.
[cited in JM 9-73.200]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1914-8-usc-1328-importing-aliens-immoral-purposes

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1915. Willful Failure Or Refusal To
Depart
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1253 to make it a criminal offense for an alien to willfully fail or refuse to depart from the United States within 90 days of a final administrative or judicial order of removal. It is also an offense to willfully fail to make timely, good faith application for travel documents necessary for departure, to take action designed to prevent such alien's departure, or to willfully fail or refuse to appear for removal. The basic penalty provision is a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisonment for up to 4 years, or both. Enhanced penalties are applicable to aliens deportable based on criminal convictions or security related grounds.
[cited in JM 9-73.200]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1915-willful-failure-or-refusal-depart

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1916. High Speed Flight From
Immigration Checkpoint
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
12 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) added a new 18 U.S.C. § 758, which makes it an offense to flee or evade a checkpoint operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or any other federal law enforcement agency, in a motor vehicle and thereafter flee from Federal, State, or local law enforcement agents in excess of the legal speed limit. Such offense is punishable by a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
[cited in JM 9-73.200]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1916-high-speed-flight-immigration-checkpoint

Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1917. Arrest, Search, And Seizure By
Immigration Officers
The general rules concerning arrest, search and seizure applicable to other federal officers are, of course, applicable to immigration officers. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., authorizes immigration officers to make arrests either for the purpose of holding an alien for civil administrative proceedings or for a crime, or both. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1225 provides that all aliens arriving at United States ports must be examined by immigration officers who are authorized, without a warrant, to board and search any conveyances believed to carry aliens, and to detain for further inquiry anyone "who may not appear . . . at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land." Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) authorizes the arrest upon warrant of the Attorney General of any alien, pending a determination of his/her deportability. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) authorizes arrest of an alien at any time within six months after a final order of deportation has been entered. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) authorizes immigration officers to seize, without a warrant, conveyances used to transport illegal aliens. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1357 sets out their authority to interrogate, arrest, search, and seize aliens without a warrant.

Subsection 1357(a)(1) of Title 8, authorizing immigration officers "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States," has a deceiving simplicity. It is deceiving because in practice the courts have strained to give the section a reasonable and meaningful interpretation in light of the Fourth Amendment. The appellate courts have evinced a reluctance to believe that such interrogations occur without a detention, however brief. Since there is usually some kind of stop or detention, the question arises as to whether immigration officers may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. The Supreme Court has declined to give that question a general answer. See United States v.

Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 n. 9 (1975). However, it has answered the question with respect to "factory surveys," that is, worksite inspections to discover illegal aliens. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v.

Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).

The "open fields" doctrine, which defines the rights of law enforcement officers to enter or observe open fields and certain non-residential structures without a search warrant is often relevant to INS enforcement efforts. The doctrine is discussed in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 107 S.Ct. 1134 (1987); Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986); and California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). However, the 1986 amendments added new subsection 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d) which prohibits INS officers from entering a farm without a search warrant.

The INS Office of General Counsel has available for distribution its memorandum entitled, "The Law of Arrest, Search, and Seizure for Immigration Officers," Publication No. M-69.

COMMENT: Further discussion of the authority of Immigration Officers is set forth in Chapter 10 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library. [cited in JM 9-73.300]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1917-arrest-search-and-seizure-immigration-officers

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
13 Criminal Resource Manual
CRM 1500-1999
1918. Arrest Of Illegal Aliens By State
And Local Officers
Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

In the absence of a specific federal statute, the validity of an arrest without a warrant for violation of federal law by local peace officers is to be determined by reference to local law. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 (1948).

In approving a state trooper's arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: "A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act's criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border.

The disappointing aspect of Gonzales is the statement that an alien's "inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause (to arrest)." See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, supra, at 16. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).
[cited in JM 9-73.300]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1918-arrest-illegal-aliens-state-and-local-officers Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
14 18 USC 611: Voting by aliensText contains those laws in effect on October 26, 2025 From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMESCHAPTER 29-ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL

ACTIVITIES
Jump To:Source CreditMiscellaneousPrior ProvisionsAmendmentsEffective Date §611. Voting by aliens
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless- (1) the election is held partly for some other purpose; (2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and (3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if-
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and (3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.
(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, §216(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–572 ; amended Pub. L. 106– 395, title II, §201(d)(1), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1635 .) Editorial Notes
Prior Provisions
A prior section 611, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 724 ; Feb. 7, 1972, Pub. L. 92–225, title II, §206, 86 Stat. 10 ; Oct. 15, 1974, Pub. L. 93–443, title I, §§101(e)(2), 103, 88 Stat. 1267 , 1272, prohibited campaign contributions by government contractors, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 94–283, title II, §201(a), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 496 .

See section 30119 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.

Amendments
2000-Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–395 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
15 Effective Date of 2000 Amendment
Pub. L. 106–395, title II, §201(d)(3), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1636 , provided that: "The amendment made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section 216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–572). The amendment made by paragraph (2) [amending section 1015 of this title] shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section 215 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–572). The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to an alien prosecuted on or after September 30, 1996, except in the case of an alien whose criminal proceeding (including judicial review thereof) has been finally concluded before the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 30, 2000]." https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:611%20edition:prelim)

Foreign nationals
Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures(including independent expenditures) and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any federal, state or local election. This prohibition includes advances of personal funds, contributions or donations made to political party committees and organizations, state or local party committees for the purchase or construction of an office building funds under 11 CFR 300.35, and contributions or disbursements to make electioneering communications.

Foreign nationals are also prohibited from, directly or indirectly, donating to an inaugural committee; and it is a violation of federal law to knowingly accept such donations from a foreign national.

Prohibitions on participation in decision-making
In addition, foreign nationals are prohibited from participating in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national may not direct, dictate, control or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committeeor political organization) with regard to the person's federal or nonfederal election-related activities. This includes decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures or disbursements in connection with any federal state or local election or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Prohibition on providing substantial assistance
Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, to a political party committee or for the purchase or construction of an office building by a state or local party committee. Similarly, it is a violation to provide substantial assistance in the making of a disbursement to make electioneering communications, or an expenditure, independent expenditure or disbursement in connection with a federal, state or local election. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.

Prohibition of knowing acceptance
For the purposes of this section, knowingly means that a person must:

Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.

Pertinent facts that satisfy the "knowing" requirement include knowledge of:

Use of a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes; Use of a foreign address;
A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or Contributor or donor living abroad.

Definition of foreign national
A foreign national is:

An individual who is: (1) not a citizen of the United States and (2) not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20)); or
A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b). Section 611(b) defines a foreign principal as a foreign Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
16 government or political party; or a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of a foreign country or whose principal place of business is in a foreign country. "Green Card" exception
An individual who is not a citizen of the United States is eligible to make a contribution if he or she has a "green card" indicating that he or she is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.

Determining nationality of contributor
In Advisory Opinion (AO) 1998-14, the Commission stated that the use of any surname on a contribution check (or similar instrument) would not, by itself, give any reason to inquire as to the person’s nationality.

Nonetheless, the Commission advised the committee to take the following minimally intrusive steps to ensure that the contributions it received did not come from foreign nationals:

Ensure that public political ads and solicitations directed to audiences outside the U.S. contain a summary of the foreign national prohibition of 52 U.S.C. § 30121.

Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution postmarked from any non U.S. territory.

Make further inquiry into the nationality of the contributor if the committee receives a contribution indicating that either the bank or the account owner has a foreign address.

In all of these instances, if the contribution is submitted along with credible evidence (for example, a copy of a valid U.S. passport) that the contributor is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or a permanent resident alien, no further inquiry need be made. However, if the committee has actual knowledge that the contributor is a foreign national, it may not rely on these documents as a defense. See also AO 2016-10 (setting forth the duty of an individual fundraiser to determine the nationality of contributors).

Domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations
The Commission has said that a foreign corporation may not establish and administer a separate segregated fund.

However, a United States domestic corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation may establish and administer a separate segregated fund which can make contributions to federal candidates as long as:

The domestic corporation is a discrete entity incorporated under the laws of any state within the United States, and its principal place of business is within the United States.

The foreign parent does not finance election-related contributions or expenditures either directly or through the subsidiary, including through subsidizing the subsidiary’s business operations, unless the subsidiary can demonstrate by a reasonable accounting method that it has sufficient funds from its own domestic operations to make any contributions or expenditures.

All decisions concerning the administration of the domestic subsidiary’s separate segregated fund are made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Partnership or LLCs with foreign national partners/members Similarly, because contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited, a partnership or LLC may not attribute any portion of a contribution to a partner or member who is a foreign national, nor may any partner who is a foreign national participate directly or indirectly in decisions regarding the making of contributions or donations in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/foreign-nationals/

 FEC Record: Outreach
Foreign nationals
June 23, 2017
The FEC often receives questions about the rules governing foreign nationals’ participation in U.S. elections. While this article responds to some of the most common questions, it does not cover all aspects of foreign national activity.

Readers should consult the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, advisory opinions, and relevant case law for additional information. For questions involving proposed activity for which there may not be clear guidance, you may consider requesting your own advisory opinion (AO) from the Commission. Please note, however, that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of the Act and does not include other laws that may also apply to foreign national activity.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
17 The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
 Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
 Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);  Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;  Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.

Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

Definition
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:
 Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);  Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;  Foreign governments;
 Foreign political parties;
 Foreign corporations;
 Foreign associations;
 Foreign partnerships; and
 Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”
Individuals: The "green card" exception
The Act does not prohibit individuals with permanent resident status (commonly referred to as “green card holders”) from making contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections, as they are not considered foreign nationals.

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions
involving election-related activities
Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].

The Commission has pursued a number of enforcement actions related to this prohibition. For example, in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3460, the Commission reached a conciliation agreement with a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation and four of its foreign national directors. The directors, along with one director who was not a foreign national, passed a resolution authorizing a “contribution committee” to make political and charitable donations from a special account, and capitalizing the committee with $50,000 in corporate funds. The one director who was not a foreign national was appointed as the sole member of the committee. The contribution committee subsequently made contributions to state and local candidates. The foreign nationals’ involvement in the decision to establish and fund the “contribution committee” meant that its subsequent contributions violated the ban on foreign nationals participating Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
18 directly or indirectly in the making of contributions and donations in connection with elections. The corporation and the foreign national directors paid a civil penalty.

Volunteer activity
Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007- 22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

Non-election activity by foreign nationals
Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels. The Commission has issued advisory opinions that help to define the parameters of that activity.

In AO 1989-32 (McCarthy), the Commission concluded that a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot measure committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate's re-election campaign. Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

Providing assistance with foreign national election
activity
Under Commission regulations, it is unlawful to knowingly provide “substantial assistance” to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. Further, no person may provide substantial assistance in the making of any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement by a foreign national. "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69945-46 (November 19, 2002).

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
19 Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals
The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:
 Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;  Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or
 Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.

Pertinent facts that should cause the recipient of a contribution or donation to question whether it was given by a foreign national include, but are not limited to the following: a donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Commission regulations provide for a safe harbor: obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.

In AO 2016-10 (Parker), the Commission determined that a U.S. citizen living abroad could solicit contributions on behalf of federal candidates and committees from other U.S. citizens residing abroad. She was required to ascertain the citizenship of the individuals whom she might solicit if she were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire or believe that those individuals were foreign nationals. However, the Commission advised the requestor, “Limiting your solicitations to friends and family who live in the U.S. and who have not, to your knowledge, lived abroad, would not obligate you to conduct further inquiry about citizenship status due to the residence of the individuals whom you solicit.” If, however, she were to obtain a copy of a valid U.S. passport, she would be covered by the safe harbor provision noted above.

In MUR 4834, an individual admitted knowingly and willfully soliciting a contribution from a foreign national and causing a foreign contribution to be made falsely in the name of a U.S. citizen. The individual also admitted that at the time of the solicitation, he knew that the person he was soliciting was a foreign national and that contributions from foreign nationals were prohibited. The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with the individual, and he agreed to pay a civil penalty.

In MUR 4638, the Commission found reason to believe that a law firm had violated the Act by knowingly solicited and provided “substantial assistance” to a foreign national making donations. Individuals at the firm participated in conversations with a known foreign national and his agents that resulted in his making donations to state and local candidates. As a result of the Commission’s finding, the firm entered into a conciliation agreement with the Commission and agreed to pay a civil penalty.

Monitoring prohibited contributions
When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:
 Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or  Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer's receipt.

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited. The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer's receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.

Evidence of legality may include a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal (e.g., donor has a green card or provides a copy of his or her valid U.S. passport), or an oral explanation that is recorded in memorandum.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
20 If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives.

In MUR 4530 and several related MURs (MURs 4531, 4587, 4642, 4909, and 5295), the Commission found that several foreign nationals and corporations had made prohibited contributions to a federal candidate committee and to a national party committee. Several committees were assessed civil penalties for failing to issue refunds when they became aware that the funds were illegal.

Domestic subsidiaries and foreign-owned
corporations
A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals or by a foreign parent corporation may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed further below.

PAC contributions for federal activity
Based on a series of FEC advisory opinions, domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may establish federal political action committees (known as separate segregated funds or SSFs) for the purpose of make federal contributions and expenditures, so long as:

1. The foreign parent corporation does not finance the SSF’s establishment, administration, or solicitation costs through the subsidiary; and

2. Individual foreign nationals:
 Do not participate in the operation of the PAC;
 Do not serve as officers of the PAC;
 Do not participate in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; and  Do not make decisions regarding any PAC contributions or expenditures.

For example, in AO 2000-17 (Extendicare), the Commission determined that a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation could establish an SSF even though the subsidiary’s board of three directors included only one U.S. citizen because the committee established to oversee all of the SSF’s operations comprised only U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

See also AOs 2009-14 (Mercedes Benz USA/Sterling), 1999-28 (Bacardi-Martini), 1995-15 (Allison Engine PAC), and 1990-08 (CIT).

Corporate donations and disbursements for nonfederal activity A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may make donations and disbursements in connection with state or local elections (if permissible under state and local law) provided that:
 These activities are not financed in any part by the foreign parent or owner; and  Individual foreign nationals are not involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.

For example, in AO 2006-15 (TransCanada), the Commission concluded that two wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries of a foreign corporation could make donations and disbursements in connection with state and local elections so long as the funds used were generated by the U.S.-based subsidiary’s operations and not from the foreign parent and that all decisions regarding political donations would be made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Since the domestic subsidiaries maintained bank accounts in the U.S. that were separate from the foreign parent and did not receive subsidies from the foreign parent or from any other foreign national, the Commission concluded that the proposal was permitted under the Act.

Similarly, in AO 1992-16 (Nansay Hawaii, Inc.), the Commission considered a situation in which a foreign parent corporation provided “regular subsidies [to its domestic subsidiary] in the form of loans or [donations] to capital…” The Commission determined that the domestic subsidiary could make state and local donations, provided that all Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
21 decisions as to political donations were made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents and also that the subsidiary be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it had sufficient funds in its account (other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent) from which the donations were made. The Commission explicitly cautioned that, “[t]he amount that the foreign parent distributes to the subsidiary cannot replenish all or any portion of the subsidiary’s political [donations] during the period since the preceding subsidy payment.” In contrast, in AO 1989-20 (Kuilima Development Company, Inc.), the Commission declined to approve a U.S. company’s plan to donate to state and local candidates using a PAC funded primarily by donations from its foreign parent corporation. The Commission held that this arrangement was prohibited by the Act and Commission regulations. See also AOs 1989-29 (GEM of Hawaii, Inc.), 1985-03 (Diridon), and 1982-10 (Syntex).

In MUR 2892, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with a number of respondents, including foreign individuals and businesses, who agreed to pay civil penalties for violations of the Act that involved prohibited contributions made to state and local candidates through U.S. corporations owned by foreign corporations or by foreign individuals. In this particular case, the Commission found reason to believe that the donations in question violated the foreign national prohibition because they were allegedly financed directly by the foreign parent/owner or because individual foreign nationals were allegedly involved in making decisions concerning the contributions. (See also MURs 2864 and 3004.)
Relevant citations
22 U.S.C. § 611(b)
Foreign principal definition
52 U.S.C. § 30121
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
11 CFR 100.74
Uncompensated services by volunteers
11 CFR 103.3(b)
Deposit of receipts and disbursements
11 CFR 110.20
Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. § 30121, 36 U.S.C. § 510)
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

67.3 Million in the United States Spoke a Foreign Language at Home in 2018 In nine states, one in four residents now speaks a language other than English at home
By Karen Zeigler and Steven A. Camarota on October 29, 2019 Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

Karen Zeigler is a demographer and Steven A. Camarota is the director of research at the Center.

Based on analysis of newly released Census Bureau data for 2018, the Center for Immigration Studies finds that 67.3 million residents in the United States now speak a language other than English at home, a number equal to the entire population of France. The number has nearly tripled since 1980, and more than doubled since 1990. The growth at the state level is even more pronounced. All language figures in Census Bureau data are for persons five years of age and older.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
22 Among the findings:
 In 2018, a record 67.3 million U.S. residents (native-born, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants) spoke a language other than English at home. The number has more than doubled since 1990 and almost tripled since 1980.
 Since 1980, the number who speak a foreign language at home grew nearly seven times faster than the number who speak only English at home. Even since 2010, when the number speaking a foreign language at home was already very large, the number of foreign-language speakers increased more than twice as fast as that of English speakers.1
 As a share of the population, 21.9 percent of U.S. residents speak a foreign language at home — more than double the 11 percent in 1980.
 In nine states, more than one in four residents now speaks a language other than English at home. These nine states account for two-thirds of all foreign-language speakers. In contrast, in 1980 foreign-language speakers were one in four residents in just two states (New Mexico and Hawaii); and these two states accounted for just 3 percent of all foreign language speakers.
 The states with the largest share of their populations speaking a foreign language at home in 2018 were California (45 percent), Texas (36 percent), New Mexico (34 percent), New Jersey (32 percent), New York and Nevada (each 31 percent), Florida (30 percent), Arizona and Hawaii (each 28 percent), and Massachusetts (24 percent).
 States with the largest percentage increase in those speaking a foreign language at home from 1980 to 2018 are Nevada (up 1,088 percent), Georgia (up 952 percent), North Carolina (up 802 percent), Virginia (up 488 percent), Tennessee (up 459 percent), Arkansas (up 445 percent), Washington (up 432 percent), South Carolina (up 398 percent), Florida (up 393 percent), Utah (up 383 percent), and Oregon (up 380 percent).  States with the largest percentage increase in the number of those speaking a foreign language at home since 2010 are North Dakota (up 63 percent), Utah (up 29 percent), Iowa (up 24 percent), Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Washington, Maryland and Nevada (each up 23 percent), Oregon and Tennessee (each up 22 percent), North Carolina and Kentucky (each up 21 percent), and South Carolina (up 20 percent).  In America's five largest cities, just under half (48 percent) of residents now speak a language other than English at home. In New York City it is 49 percent; in Los Angeles it is 59 percent; in Chicago it is 36 percent; in Houston it is 50 percent; and in Phoenix it is 38 percent.2  In 2018, there were 90 cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) with populations of at least 63,000 in which a majority of residents spoke a foreign language at home. These include Hialeah, Fla., and Laredo, Texas (each 89 percent); East Los Angeles (88 percent); and Passaic, N.J. (78 percent).3  In 2018, there were 229 cities and CDPs in which more than one in three residents spoke a language other than English at home. Some of these places may be surprising: Providence, R.I. (50 percent); Allentown, Pa. (48 percent); Germantown, Md. (46 percent); Centerville, Va. (44 percent); New Rochelle, N.Y. (42 percent); West Valley City, Utah (39 percent); Springdale, Ark. (35 percent); and Troy, Mich. (34 percent).  The largest numerical increases in those who speak a language other than English at home between 2010 and 2018 were among speakers of Spanish (up 4.5 million), Chinese (up 663,000), Arabic (up 394,000), Hindi (up 265,000), Tagalog (up 187,000), Telugu (up 177,000), Vietnamese (up 161,000), Bengali (up 152,000), Portuguese (up 128,000), and Tamil (up 124,000). Telugu and Tamil are spoken in India, Tagalog is the national language of the Philippines, and Bengali is spoken in India and is also the national language of Bangladesh.
 Languages with more than a million people who speak it at home in 2018 were Spanish (41.5 million), Chinese (3.5 million), Tagalog (1.8 million), Vietnamese (1.5 million), Arabic (1.3 million), French (1.2 million), and Korean (1.1 million).
 There are now more people who speak Spanish at home in the United States than in any country in Latin America with the exception of Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina.  Of those who speak a foreign language at home, 25.6 million (38 percent) told the Census Bureau that they speak English less than very well. This figure is entirely based on the opinion of the respondent; the Census Bureaus does not measure language skills.4
 Of those who speak a foreign language at home, 45 percent were born in the United States.

Data Source. In September 2019, the Census Bureau released some of the data from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS). The survey reflects the U.S. population as of July 1, 2018. The ACS is by far the largest survey taken by the federal government each year and includes over two million households.5 The Census Bureau has posted some of the results from the ACS to the Bureau's website.6 It has not released the public-use version of the ACS for researchers to download and analyze. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this analysis comes directly from the Bureau's website.

There are three language questions in the ACS for 2010 and 2018. The first asks whether each person in the survey speaks a language other than English at home. Second, for those who answer "yes", the survey then asks what Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
23 language the person speaks. Third, the survey also asks how well the person speaks English. Only those who speak a language at home other than English are asked about their English skills. The 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses (long form) asked almost the exact same questions.

In this report we provide some statistics for the immigrant population, referred to as the "foreign-born" by the Census Bureau. The foreign-born population is comprised of those individuals who were not U.S. citizens at birth. It includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), temporary workers, foreign students, and illegal immigrants. It does not include those born to immigrants in the United States, including to illegal immigrant parents, nor does it include those born in outlying U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico. Prior research by the Department of Homeland Security and others indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants respond to the ACS.7 End Notes
1 In 1980 there were 23.06 million who spoke a foreign language at home and 187.19 million who spoke only English at home. In 2018, there were 67.27 million people who spoke a foreign language at home and 240.25 million who spoke only English at home. This means that the number of foreign-language speakers increased 192 percent between 1980 and 2018, compared to a 28 percent increase for those who speak only English. It also means the number of foreign-language speakers increased 13 percent between 2010 and 2018 and the number who speak only English increased 5 percent. All figures are for persons five years of age and older. 2 Figures for 552 cities and CDP are shown in Table 5, available here. The 48 percent is based on the entire population of these five cities. If the share for each city is averaged together without regard to each city's size, then 46 percent speak a language other than English at home.
3 The Census Bureau at census.data.gov reports population figures for 629 cities and CDPs. Of these, language data is available for the 552 shown in Table 5. The total population (not just those 5 and older) in the smallest of these cities was slightly over 63,000.
4 There is some other data that does measure the English language ability of U.S. residents, including those who speak a foreign language at home. The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) measured English literacy among a representative sample of Americans between 2012 and 2014. Publicly available data from the PIAAC shows that among people who spoke a foreign language most often at home, 49 percent scored "below basic" on an objective test of English literacy — including immigrants and the native-born. "Below basic" has been likened to functional illiteracy. It seems likely that the self-assessment reported in the ACS overstates English language ability while the PIAAC does a better job of capturing language ability. However, the PIAAC data must be interpreted with caution due to differences in question wording. The PIAAC asks which language is spoken most often at home, whereas the Census simply asks if a non-English language is spoken at home. Furthermore, about a third of PIAAC participants did not answer the question about language use at home, for reasons that are unclear. See Jason Richwine, "Immigrant Literacy: Self-Assessment vs. Reality", Center for Immigration Studies, June 21, 2017. 5 Detailed information on the survey methodology, questions, and other information on the American Community can be found here.
6 ACS data on the Census Bureau's website can be found at data.census.gov. 7 See Table 2 on page 5 in Bryan Baker, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2014", Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics", July 2017. https://cis.org/Report/673-Million-United-States-Spoke-Foreign-Language-Home-2018 N A T I O N A L I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C E N T E R | W W W . N I L C . O R G LOS ANGELES (Headquarters) 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213 639-3900 213 639-3911 fax WASHINGTON, DC 1121 14th Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 202 216-0261 202 216-0266 fax A “Marked” License Is Not Proof of Immigration Status Revised JULY 13, 2015 any states recognize that expanding immigrants’ access to driver’s licenses is a matter of public safety, since it is in the public interest for drivers to be trained, tested, licensed, and insured. As a result, eight states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, passed laws in 2013 authorizing issuance of licenses that do not require proof of lawful immigration status.1 The licenses available under the new laws, passed to comply with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, are marked as not valid for federal official purposes or are otherwise distinguishable from regular licenses. These laws provide an avenue for eligible undocumented drivers to obtain a license,2 but the marked licenses are not proof that a driver is undocumented. Here’s why: Citizens or Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
24 lawfully present immigrants may be eligible for the marked licenses. States have chosen a variety of approaches in deciding who is eligible for a marked license. Some states (e.g., Vermont) explicitly allow U.S. citizens to obtain such licenses, and some (e.g., Colorado) require many lawfully present immigrants—such as people who are in the U.S. on business or professional visas, or who have been granted withholding of removal, or who were paroled into the U.S. for humanitarian reasons—to obtain them. Some people who were issued a marked license when they were ineligible for a regular license might have since acquired an eligible immigration status or proof of U.S. citizenship. The immigration status process is fluid. A person may have been issued a marked license when she was undocumented, or when her immigration status entitled her only to a marked license, or when she could not yet prove that, though born abroad, she had derived U.S. citizenship from, for example, being the child of a U.S. citizen. But when her immigration status changes and she is able to prove that she is eligible for a regular license, or she obtains proof of U.S. citizenship, she may still have a marked license. The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) has made clear that no conclusions about a person’s citizenship or immigration status can be drawn based on the type of license the person has. Having a non–REAL ID-compliant or a marked license does not indicate that the license-holder is not lawfully present. As DHS explains, there are a variety of reasons why a person may not have or obtain a REAL IDcompliant license: A “Not for Federal Identification” or a similar mark means that the issuing state offers its residents the option to obtain a driver’s license or identity card which is not compliant with 1 New Mexico, Utah, and Washington were already issuing driver’s licenses or driving privilege cards to immigrants regardless of their immigration status. Oregon’s law, enacted in 2013, was repealed by referendum in 2014. 2 The laws are permissible under the REAL ID Act, which sets standards, including proof of lawful presence, for driver’s licenses to be accepted for official federal purposes. For more information about REAL ID, see www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1040. M N A T I O N A L I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C E N T E R | W W W . N I L C . O R G A “Marked” License Is Not Proof of Immigration Status PAGE 2 of 2 REAL ID and that the license holder has chosen to exercise that option. A variety of reasons may underlie that choice, including personal preference, religious conviction, or the inability or decision not to provide original documents needed to verify identity, citizenship, or lawful status in the United States. No inferences or assumptions should be drawn about the particular reason an individual possesses a card with this mark, including inferences or assumptions about the person’s citizenship or immigration status.3 Presentation of a “marked” license is acceptable as an identification document for employment purposes, as long as it is accompanied by current proof that the person is work-authorized. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recognizes that a marked license is acceptable to prove a new hire’s identity when completing the I-9 employment eligibility verification process (the process for verifying whether a newly hired employee is authorized to work in the U.S.). . . . The notation "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY," “NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES” or a similar notation on the front or back of a state-issued driver’s license indicates it does not meet the standards for the issuance and production of a compliant card under the REAL ID Act . . . . A driver’s license with this type of notation is, however, an acceptable List B document if it contains a photograph or identifying information such as name, date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and address. An employer must examine the document presented by its employee and determine whether it meets Form I-9 requirements. . . . 4 Of course, the employer must also require that the new employee present proof that he or she is work-authorized, but the employer may not assume that the worker is undocumented simply because he or she has a marked license, and may not refuse to accept a marked license as proof of identity. 5 The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) has warned employers that concluding that a person with a marked license is undocumented may constitute discrimination: To the extent a driver’s license or state identification card presented for 1-9 purposes satisfies the criteria to be considered a List B document, and is paired with an unexpired List C document, an employer is cautioned against concluding that an individual is not legally authorized to work in the United States based on a perception that a List B document is “statistically issued to predominantly undocumented individuals.” An employment-authorized individual whose List B document was rejected because an employer made this assumption may allege discrimination on the basis of national origin or citizenship status in violation of the antidiscrimination provision by filing a discrimination charge with OSC.6 THEREFORE, GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE AGENCIES, entities, or individuals should not make any assumptions about the citizenship or immigration status of people whose driver’s licenses are “marked,” and should not discriminate against them on that basis. 3 REAL ID Frequently Asked Questions for the Public (DHS, Jan. 11, 2015), www.dhs.gov/real-idpublic-faqs, emphasis added. 4 Frequently Asked Questions: I-9 Central: List B Documents – Identity (USCIS, Nov. 6, 2014), www.uscis.gov/faq-page/i9-central-list-b-documents-identity#t17079n48243. 5 Id. 6 Letter to Nataliya Binshteyn, Esq., from Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Feb. 7, 2014, www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/pdf/publications/TAletters/FY2014/179.pdf. https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/marked-license-immigration-status-2015-07-13.pdf

NAFTA’s Legacy: Lost Jobs, Lower Wages, Increased Inequality The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the U.S. public in 1993 with grand promises. The deal would create 200,000 new U.S. jobs per year in its first five years alone, according to President Clinton.1 That projection was based on a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) that modeled how NAFTA’s elimination of Mexican and Canadian tariffs would result in growth of U.S. exports that would outpace growth in imports from the other NAFTA countries.2 By expanding our Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
25 pre-NAFTA trade surplus with Mexico and improving the U.S. trade balance with Canada (with which the United States had a small pre-NAFTA deficit), NAFTA would create numerous U.S. jobs. But instead of an improved trade balance with Canada and Mexico, NAFTA resulted in an explosion of imports that led to a huge new U.S. NAFTA trade deficit.

More than 980,000 specific U.S. jobs have been certified by the U.S. Labor Department as lost to NAFTA outsourcing and import floods under just one narrow program.3 This is a significant undercount of the job loss, given that the program, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), excluded many categories of workers during NAFTA’s first decade of damage, and reporting is voluntary, so only those who know about the program and do the work to apply are even considered. The mass outsourcing of American jobs was the outcome about which NAFTA opponents had warned. At the heart of NAFTA are special protections that make it cheaper and safer for corporations to outsource U.S. jobs to low-wage Mexico. These investor protections provide special benefits to firms that relocate and eliminate many of the usual risks that make corporations think twice about moving production to another country. With Mexican manufacturing workers paid a fraction of what U.S. workers are paid, some U.S. companies had begun to relocate production to Mexico before NAFTA. Many of these jobs were in industries, such as apparel, that did not require major investments to open a factory. But NAFTA’s investor protections made it safe for U.S. firms to relocate high-end manufacturing jobs. And because Mexico did not have independent unions, the U.S. corporations could rely on wages staying low. U.S. auto, electronics, appliance, heavy equipment and other manufacturers built high-tech, multi-million dollar plants in Mexico. Mexican workers making less per day than their U.S. counterparts had made per hour toiled to make products that were then sent back to the United States for sale. Mexican workers were not paid enough to buy the cars, televisions and other goods they produced. And many of the U.S. workers who used to make these goods – many in union factories – could only find new jobs that paid much less. Companies’ profits exploded, while U.S. workers lost jobs and faced declining wages, fueling increasing income inequality. Source: U.S. International Trade Commission DataWeb Huge New NAFTA Trade Deficit Emerges The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada of $31 billion and the $2.7 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA goods trade deficit of $218 billion by 2018, as indicated in the graph above.4 This represents a 584 percent increase in the U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA countries. These numbers are inflation-adjusted, meaning the difference is not due to inflation, but an increased deficit in real terms. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has worsened considerably more than the U.S. goods trade deficit with countries with which we have not signed NAFTAstyle deals. Since NAFTA, the annual growth of the U.S. goods trade deficit has been 51 percent higher with Mexico and Canada than with countries that are not party to NAFTA.5 The U.S. NAFTA goods trade deficit has continued to increase during the Trump presidency: The deficit for the first eight months of 2019 was up by 10.5 percent over the same period in 2018.6 The growth in the U.S. service sector surplus with NAFTA countries has not offset the much larger growth in the goods trade deficit. Service exports were supposed to do particularly well under NAFTA, but the U.S. growth in services trade surplus with Mexico and Canada has slowed: the surplus quadrupled in the five years before NAFTA, but only doubled in the 25 years since.7 If you include the relatively small U.S. service sector trade surpluses with Mexico and Canada, the combined U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico and Canada rose (in inflation-adjusted terms) from $10.5 billion before NAFTA in 1993 to $182 billion in 2018.8 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Defenders of NAFTA argue that the NAFTA deficit is really only due to fossil fuel (oil, coal, and gas) imports. For instance, in 2016 the USTR website noted: “The largest factor affecting the trade balance with NAFTA countries is the importation of fossil fuels and their byproducts. If those products are excluded, there is no deficit. In fact, the United States has a large and growing trade surplus in goods…” That is simply false: even if one removes all fossil fuel categories, the 2018 NAFTA goods trade deficit was still $178 billion.9 Contrary to the myth that energy imports represent a large share of the NAFTA deficit, which they once did, today the U.S. exports more energy to Mexico than it imports. The U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA countries is largely in manufactured goods. As a result, minus fossil fuels our NAFTA goods and services deficit in 2018 was still $142 billion.10 U.S. manufacturing and services exports grew more slowly after NAFTA took effect. Since then, annual growth in U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico has fallen 72.7 percent below the annual rate in the years before NAFTA.11 Annual growth of U.S. services exports to Mexico and Canada since NAFTA has fallen to less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.12 Massive U.S. Jobs Losses Due to NAFTA The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that the rising U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA had already eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004.13 EPI estimates that about one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA’s first decade were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy, including service sector jobs, which suffered as closed factories no longer demanded services.14 EPI further calculated that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about 850,000 net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2013.15 This toll has likely grown since 2013, as the non-fossil fuel U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has risen.16 Moreover, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that nearly 4.3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA took effect.17 Obviously, not all of these lost U.S. manufacturing jobs – one out of every four of our manufacturing jobs – are due to NAFTA.

The United States entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, China joined the WTO in 2000, and the U.S. trade deficit with China soared thereafter, contributing to the manufacturing job loss.18 To see a state-by-state breakdown of manufacturing job losses since enactment of NAFTA and the WTO, visit Public Citizen’s job loss map at www.citizen.org/job-loss-map. While EPI’s estimates of the job losses resulting from NAFTA summarize the overall effect of the growing NAFTA trade deficit, the government itself tracks some of the layoffs known to have specifically occurred due to imports or outsourcing through TAA. As mentioned above, the TAA program is quite narrow, so NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss. Still, more than 980,000 workers have been certified as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.19 To see the Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
26 full set of TAA-certified job losses – searchable by company, product, congressional district and city – visit Public Citizen’s TAA database at www.citizen.org/taadatabase. Wages Decline Due to NAFTA Trade affects the composition of jobs available in an economy. The aggregate number of jobs available can be better explained by fiscal and monetary policy, the impacts of recessions and other macroeconomic realities. The United States lost millions of manufacturing jobs during the NAFTA era, but overall unemployment has been largely stable (excluding the fallout of the Great Recession) as new low-paying service sector jobs have been created. Proponents of NAFTA raise the quantity of jobs to claim that NAFTA has not hurt U.S. workers. But what they do not mention is that the quality of jobs available, and the wages most U.S. workers can earn, have been degraded. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every five displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2017 experienced a wage reduction. One out of every four displaced manufacturing workers took a pay cut of greater than 20 percent.20 For the average worker earning the median manufacturing wage of $39,500 per year, this meant an annual loss of at least $7,900.21 When manufacturing workers lose jobs to trade and seek new jobs available to those without a college degree, they add to the supply of U.S. workers available for non-offshorable, non-professional jobs, for instance in hospitality, retail and health care. For example, between 1993 and 2018, the manufacturing sector lost about 4.3 million jobs. At the same time, the leisure and hospitality sector gained 6.2 million jobs, which has an average wage of $16 an hour, almost half that of the average wage in the manufacturing sector.22 U.S. Economic Inequality Reaches New Extremes There is abroad academic consensus that trade flows have contributed to rising U.S. income inequality. The only debate is the extent of trade’s role in creating a situation in which the richest 10 percent of Americans are now taking more than half of the economic pie, while the top 1 percent is taking more than one-fifth. Since NAFTA’s implementation, the share of national income collected by the richest 10 percent has risen by 24 percent, while the top 1 percent’s share has shot up by 55 percent.23 NAFTA has placed downward pressure on wages for the middle and lower economic classes by forcing decently-paid U.S. manufacturing workers to compete with imports made by poorly-paid workers abroad. The resulting displacement of those decently-paid U.S. workers has further depressed middle-class wages by adding to the surplus of workers seeking lower-paying service sector jobs. NAFTA also contributes to rising inequality by enabling employers to threaten to move their companies overseas during wage bargaining with workers. For instance, a Cornell University study commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Commission found that, after the passage of NAFTA, as many as 62 percent of U.S. union drives faced employer threats to close, many to re-locate abroad, and the factory shutdown rate following successful union certifications tripled.24 NAFTA-style deals also dampen middle class wages by waiving the government procurement rules in place since the New Deal that required the government to reinvest tax dollars into purchasing American-made goods. NAFTA and pacts like it also forbid federal and state governments from requiring that only U.S. workers perform the jobs created by the outsourcing of government work.

Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian firms – and goods from those countries – must be treated as if they were American. Waiving Buy American procurement policies means our tax dollars are outsourced rather than reinvested to create jobs here. And, NAFTA’s limits on permissible procurement policy also subject prevailing wage laws (designed to ensure good wages for construction work) and other conditions for receiving government contracts to challenge in NAFTA tribunals as violations of the agreement.25 Even proponents of NAFTA admit that trade pressures have likely contributed to today’s historic degree of inequality. The pro-NAFTA Peterson Institute has estimated that 39 percent of observed growth in U.S. wage inequality is attributable to trade trends.26 Wage Losses Outweigh Cheaper Consumer Prices Under NAFTA-style Trade Many proponents of NAFTA-style trade pacts acknowledge that they will cause the loss of some U.S. jobs, but argue that U.S. workers still win overall by being able to purchase cheaper goods imported from abroad. First, this promise has failed to materialize for many critical consumer items, such as food. Despite a 290 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA,27 the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 75 percent since the deal went into effect.28 Second, even those reductions in prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses in wages under NAFTA. The Center for Economic and Policy Research discovered that when comparing the lower prices of cheaper goods to the income lost from low-wage competition under current trade policy, the trade-related wage losses outweigh the gains in cheaper goods for the vast majority of U.S. workers. U.S. workers without college degrees (66 percent of the workforce) have likely lost an amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages under NAFTA-style trade even after accounting for the benefits of cheaper goods.29 That translates to a net loss of more than $4,000 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $32,838.30 ENDNOTES 1Robert L. Jackson, “Clinton Sees NAFTA Gains, Urges Foes to Dismiss Fears,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 14, 1993. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-14/news/mn-56962_1_americanworkers. 2Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA: An Assessment, (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1993), at 14. 3 Public Citizen, Trade Adjustment Assistance Database, 2018, accessed Oct. 10, 2018. Available at: http://www.citizen.org/ taadatabase. 4 For this paragraph and the accompanying graph: U.S.

International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Oct. 9, 2019. Available at: http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Exports are domestic exports and imports are imports for consumption. Figures are adjusted to 2017 dollars using the CPI-U-RS from the Congressional Budget Office. 5U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http:// dataweb.usitc.gov.

Data is a comparison of the compound annual growth rates of the combined balance of the respective countries from 1993 through 2018. For NAFTA trade data, exports are domestic exports and imports are imports for consumption, adjusted for inflation. For all other countries, exports are total exports and imports are general imports, adjusted for inflation. 6 Public Citizen, “A Year After Deal Announced, NAFTA Deficit Up 10% as Trump Sidelines Reform with Refusal to Cut USMCA Pharma Terms that Lock in High Drug Prices,” Press Release, Oct. 4, 2019. Available at: https://www.citizen.org/news/a -year-after-deal-announced-nafta-deficit-up-10-as-trump-sidelines-reform-withItem 1 December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
27 refusal-to-cut-usmca-pharma-terms-that-lock-inhigh-drug-prices/. 7 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “International Transactions, International Services, and International Investment Position Tables,” accessed Feb. 8, 2018. Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1. 8Goods data derives from U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Feb. 8, 2018. Available at: http://dataweb.usitc.gov.

Services data derives from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “International Transactions, International Services, and International Investment Position Tables,” accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/ iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=6&step=1#reqid=6&step=1&i-suri=1. 9The product code for fossil fuels is HS 27. 10Goods data derives from U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http://dataweb.usitc.gov. 11U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Feb. 8, 2018. Available at: http:// dataweb.usitc.gov. Manufacturing exports are defined as NAICS 31, 32, and 33 from 1997-2017, and as SIC 2 and 3 from 1989- 1996. (Pre-1989 data is not available.) The statistic is a comparison of the pre- and post-NAFTA compound annual growth rates of inflationadjusted manufacturing exports to Mexico and Canada. 12U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “International Transactions, International Services, and International Investment Position Tables,” accessed Feb. 8, 2018. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=6&step=1#reqid=6&step=1&isuri=1. This a comparison of the preand post-NAFTA compound annual growth rates of inflation-adjusted services exports to Mexico and Canada from 1986 (earliest year of available data) through 1993 and from 1993 through 2017. 13Robert E. Scott, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell, “Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Working for North America’s Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper 173, Sept. 28, 2006. Available at: http://s2.epi.org/files/page/-/old/briefingpapers/173/ bp173.pdf. 14Robert E. Scott, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell, “Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Working for North America’s Workers,” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper 173, Sept. 28, 2006, at 20. Available at: http://s2.epi.org/files/page/- /old/ briefingpapers/173/bp173.pdf. 15Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, “The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.

Trade, Jobs, and Investment,” Review of Keynesian Economics, 2:4, 2014. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/elg/rokejn/v2y2014i4p429-441.html. 16U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” Feb. 6, 2018. Available at: dataweb.usitc.gov. Exports are domestic exports and imports are imports for consumption. Fossil fuels is defined as HS 27. 17U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics survey, series ID CES3000000001, manufacturing industry, U.S. Department of Labor, extracted Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ces/. 18See Robert Scott and Zane Mokhiber, “The China Toll Deepens: Growth in U.S.–China Trade Deficit Between 2001 and 2017 Cost 3.4 Million Jobs, With Losses in Every State and Congressional District,” Economic Policy Institute, Oct. 23, 2018. Available at: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and2017- cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/. 19Public Citizen, Trade Adjustment Assistance Database, accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: https://www.citizen.org/tradeadjustmentassistance-database. 20U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Displaced Workers Summary,” U.S. Department of Labor, Aug. 25, 2016. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disp.nr0.htm. 21U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “May 2017 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Sectors 31, 32, and 33 – Manufacturing,” Occupational Employment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, accessed Feb. 8, 2018. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_31-33.htm#00-0000. 22U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Industries by Supersector and NAICS Code,” U.S. Department of Labor, accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_naics.htm. 23Mark W. Frank, “Frank-Sommeiller-Price Series, Annual Top Income Shares by U.S. State, 1917-2015,” accessed Feb. 9, 2018. Available at: http://www.shsu.edu/~eco_mwf/inequality.html. 24Kate Bronfenbrenner, “The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize,” North American Commission for Labor Cooperation Report, 1997.

Available at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=intl. 25Public Citizen, “How Overreaching “Trade” Pact Rules Can Undermine Buy American and Other Domestic Preference Procurement Policies,” accessed Feb. 12, 2018. Available at: https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/procurement-fromftas_0.pdf. 26William Cline, Trade and Income Distribution, (Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1997). For analysis of this and other studies on trade and income inequality, see http://www.citizen.org/documents/trade-and-incomeinequality.pdf. 27U.S. International Trade Commission, “Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb,” accessed Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http:// dataweb.usitc.gov. “Food” includes the following HTS 2-digit codes: meat/poultry, fish/seafood, dairy, vegetables, fruits/nuts, coffee/tea/spices, milling products, meat/fish preparations, animal/vegetable fats, sugars/confectionary, cocoa products, cereal/flour preparations, vegetable/fruit/nut preparations, miscellaneous edible preparations and beverages. 28Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index Database," CPI for food at home for all urban consumers, Series ID CUUS0000SAF11, U.S. Department of Labor, extracted Oct. 10, 2019. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. 29Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, “Will New Trade Gains Make Us Rich?” Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Paper, Oct. 2001. Available at: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/trade_2001_10_03.pdf. The share of workforce without a college degree comes from U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States:

Table 2. Educational Attainment of the Population 25 Years and Over, by Selected Characteristics: 2017,” accessed Feb. 12, 2018. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2015/tables.html. 30Median wage information comes from Social Security Administration, “Wage Statistics for 2018,” accessed Oct. 10, 2019.

Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2018 . For more information, please visit Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch at www.TradeWatch.org
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
28 https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/NAFTA-Factsheet_Deficit-Jobs-Wages_Oct-2019.pdf

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
29 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: What is Black/Negro/African-American culture in the United States of America?

EXTERNAL
What is Black/Negro/African-American culture in the United States of America? Why are black/negro/african-americans in the United States of American given by white American leaders and politicians one month recognition and two federal holidays with their high unwed births and low intelligence? Black Rob - Star In The Hood (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x7zr_IXu-I&list=RD6x7zr_IXu-I&start_radio=1 Things Ghetto Black People Say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJDPGQEiKw
If any other racial/ethnic group engages in miscegenation with black/negro/african-americans in the united states of america the local, state, and federal governments, educational institutions, and media outlets brand, categorized, and classify their offspring as one of them 100% based on lies and falsification.

That is a violation.

What is the Problem with Failing to Address Lower Average Black Intelligence? By Primary Researcher, July 15, 2020 https://www.brightworkresearch.com/what-is-the-problem-with-not-addressing-black-intelligence/ Effects of the Breakdown of the Black Family Issue: Children from broken families suffer from a number of negative outcomes, regardless of race or ethnicity. Because black families are the least intact,1 they tend to experience these consequences more than any other race. Effects of Single Parenthood Crime. Boys who grow up without a father are twice as likely to end up in jail than those who come from two-parent families.2 Behavior. 85 percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.3 Education. 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.4 Poverty. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families.5 State of the Black Family Between 1960 and 2012, the share of black adults ages 25 and older who have never been married quadrupled (from 9 percent in 1960 to 36 percent in 2012).6 In 2012, 72.1 percent of African American children were born out of wedlock.7 Only 17 percent of black 15-17 year olds are living with their married biological parents, while 83 percent have lived in nonintact families.8 Negative Outcomes for Black Children A study by the Progressive Policy Institute found, “After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.”9 A longitudinal study of black urban youth revealed when parents were married, adolescents demonstrated significantly higher grades, mediated through paternal involvement.10 The poverty rate for black married-couple families is five times lower than for black non-married families. 11 Conclusion: The breakdown of the black family has created a multigenerational crisis within the black community. This crisis has not only exacerbated racial disparities, but also has profoundly wounded our nation, especially black children in the next generation. 1 Patrick F. Fagan, “The Fourth Annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection” MARRI Research, February 2014 available at http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF14B32.pdf 2This figure controls for factors such as income, parent education, race, and urban residence. Cynthia Harper and Sara S. McLanahan , "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397 accessible at http://www.gwu.edu/~pad/202/father.pdf. 3 National Institute of Justice and the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, "What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?" National Institute of Justice Research Forum (1998) accessible at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172210.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2014. 4 National Institute of Justice and the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, "What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?" National Institute of Justice Research Forum (1998). Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172210.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2014. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
30 Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011. 6 Wendy Wang and Kim Parker, “Record Share of Americans Have Never Married: As Values, Economics and Gender Patterns Change,” Pew Research Center, September 2014, available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-havenever-married/ 7 Martin J. A., Hamilton B. E., Osterman, M. J. K., Curtin, S. C., & Mathews T. J. (2013). Births: Final data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports, 62(9). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf As cited by “Births to Unmarried Women: Indicators on Children and Youth” Child Trends Data Bank. July
2014 http://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/75_Births_to_Unmarried_Women.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2014. 8 Patrick F. Fagan, “The Fourth Annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection” MARRI Research, February 2014 available at http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF14B32.pdf 9 Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, As cited by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996,
p.31 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2779588?uid=3739936&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256 &sid= 21104268888111 10 Cheryl L. Somers, et al, “Family disruption and academic functioning in urban, black youth,” Psychology in the Schools 48: 4 (2011): 357-370. Accessed 3 October 2014. Doi: 10.1002/pits.20559 11 United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. "POV02. People in Families by Family Structure, Age, and Sex, Iterated by Income-to-Poverty Ratio and Race." Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Washington: US Census Bureau, 2011. Web. 30 Jul. 2014. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/POV02_100.htm. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF14K19.pdf

East St. Louis cheerleading team shut down for season after fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcaHgzRHjlg

Fight breaks out at high school graduation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-uOK_7oFg

https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/afp_m52h9.jpg?w=1024&h=683

BLACK Professor: We ALREADY Had Reparations
https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow/videos/black-professor-we-already-hadreparations/294669689071783/

‘Reparations For Black America Already Happened,’ Black Scholar Tells Don Lemon, By Ben Johnson • Jun 3, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/reparations-for-black-america-already-happened-black-scholar-tells-don-lemon

Message on the Observance of Black History Month, February 1976.

February 10, 1976
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/message-the-observance-black-history-month-february-1976

PUBLIC LAW 99-244—FEB. 11, 1986
Public Law 99-244
99th Congress
Joint Resolution
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg6.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 103-304—AUG. 23, 1994 108 STAT. 1565, Public Law 103-304, 103d Congress An Act
To authorize appropriations for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal HoUday Commission, to extend such Commission, and to support the planning and performance
of national service opportunities in conjunction with the Federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-108/pdf/STATUTE-108-Pg1565.pdf https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1933/text

Juneteenth and the Dangers of Fake History, by Daniel Natal June 22, 2021 Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
31 Juneteenth is to Independence Day as Kwanzaa is to Christmas: a sort of synthetic reverse-engineered holiday that didn’t crop up organically from the people, but was imposed in a top-down fashion by ideologues. What does the German philosopher Hegel have to say about the “fake history” that is now being promoted in the American peoples’ name by corrupt propagandists and spineless politicians? https://thenewamerican.com/video/juneteenth-and-the-dangers-of-fake-history/

S.475 - Juneteenth National Independence Day Act117th Congress (2021-2022) Law
Hide Overview
Sponsor:

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] (Introduced 02/25/2021)
Committees:

Senate - Judiciary
Latest Action:
06/17/2021 Became Public Law No: 117-17. (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes:

There has been 1 roll call vote
Tracker: Tip
This bill has the status Became Law
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Introduced
Passed Senate
Passed House
To President
Became Law

More on This Bill
CBO Cost Estimates [0]
Supporting House Members [1]
Subject — Policy Area:

Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
View subjects
Related CRS Products:

CRS Reports on S.475
Summary (4)
Text (4)
Actions (17)
Titles (6)
Amendments (0)
Cosponsors (60)
Committees (1)
Related Bills (2)
Summary: S.475 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information (Except Text) Listen
There are 4 summaries for S.475. Public Law (06/17/2021) Passed House (06/16/2021)
Passed Senate (06/15/2021)
Introduced in Senate (02/25/2021)

Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:

Public Law No: 117-17 (06/17/2021)
Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
This bill establishes Juneteenth National Independence Day, June 19, as a legal public holiday. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/all-actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/titles https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/committees Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
32 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/475/related-bills

A Proclamation on Juneteenth Day of Observance, 2021
On June 19, 1865 — nearly nine decades after our Nation’s founding, and more than 2 years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation — enslaved Americans in Galveston, Texas, finally received word that they were free from bondage. As those who were formerly enslaved were recognized for the first time as citizens, Black Americans came to commemorate Juneteenth with celebrations across the country, building new lives and a new tradition that we honor today. In its celebration of freedom, Juneteenth is a day that should be recognized by all Americans. And that is why I am proud to have consecrated Juneteenth as our newest national holiday.

Juneteenth is a day of profound weight and power.

A day in which we remember the moral stain and terrible toll of slavery on our country –- what I’ve long called America’s original sin. A long legacy of systemic racism, inequality, and inhumanity.

But it is a day that also reminds us of our incredible capacity to heal, hope, and emerge from our darkest moments with purpose and resolve.

As I said on the 100th Anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, great nations don’t ignore the most painful chapters of their past. Great nations confront them. We come to terms with them.

On Juneteenth, we recommit ourselves to the work of equity, equality, and justice. And, we celebrate the centuries of struggle, courage, and hope that have brought us to this time of progress and possibility. That work has been led throughout our history by abolitionists and educators, civil rights advocates and lawyers, courageous activists and trade unionists, public officials, and everyday Americans who have helped make real the ideals of our founding documents for all.

There is still more work to do. As we emerge from the long, dark winter of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, racial equity remains at the heart of our efforts to vaccinate the Nation and beat the virus. We must recognize that Black Americans, among other people of color, have shouldered a disproportionate burden of loss — while also carrying us through disproportionately as essential workers and health care providers on the front lines of the crisis.

Psalm 30 proclaims that “weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” Juneteenth marks both the long, hard night of slavery and discrimination, and the promise of a brighter morning to come. My Administration is committed to building an economy — and a Nation — that brings everyone along, and finally delivers our Nation’s founding promise to Black Americans. Together, we will lay the roots of real and lasting justice, so that we can become the extraordinary country that was promised to all Americans.

Juneteenth not only commemorates the past. It calls us to action today.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 19, 2021, as Juneteenth Day of Observance. I call upon the people of the United States to acknowledge and celebrate the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of Black Americans, and commit together to eradicate systemic racism that still undermines our founding ideals and collective prosperity.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/18/a-proclamation-on-juneteenthday-of-observance-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/18/a-proclamation-on-juneteenth-day-ofobservance-2021/

Black Women's Roundtable
Send it
Print it
Download the BWR Policy Forum Agenda ⇨
At Standing-Room Only Black Women's Roundtable Forum, Black Women Leaders Amplify Priorities Important For Presidential Candidate To Win Their Vote
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Black Women’s Roundtable (BWR), in partnership with ESSENCE and the Congressional Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
33 Black Caucus Foundation, recently hosted the 11th Annual BWR “Women of Power” Policy Forum with a standing-room crowd of nearly 300 attendees, and over 20,000 watching the event live on #RolandMartinUnfiltered. The two-part strategy conversation (still viewable online), featured some of the nation’s most influential Black women leaders from across the spectrum of politics, philanthropy, business, labor, civil and human rights, faith, law enforcement, media, academia, and community activists.

The first power table session—moderated by Tiffany Cross, managing editor of The Beat DC—featured Congresswoman Karen Bass (CA-37), Chair, Congressional Black Caucus , Melanie L. Campbell, President & CEO and National BWR Convener, Yesha Callahan of ESSENCE, Shani Hosten of AARP, Menna Demessie of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and Alfreda Robinson of the National Bar Association, CJ Davis, President, National Organization of Black Law Executives & Chief of Police, Durham, NC and several others. They dissected the results of this year’s much-talked-about Power of the Sister Vote Poll, which measured the opinions of more than 1,000 Black women on the 2020 presidential candidates, the most critical issues impacting Black America, and threats to U.S. democracy. The session then broadened to include a conversation during which the women shared their ideas and insight on how best to center a justice agenda for Black women and their families.

The second power table session—moderated by Angela Rye, CNN political analyst, and CEO of Impact Strategies— featured Tomeka Hart of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Katleyn Jackson of The Coca-Cola Company, Joi L.

Owens of Oxfam America, Michelle DuBois of Values Partnerships, and Candi Castleberry Singleton of Twitter. They discussed how Black women leaders in philanthropy, civic engagement, and politics are using their influence to employ strategies that leverage the voting power of Black women and young people in the 2020 presidential election cycle and also ensure a fair count of the Black population in the 2020 Decennial Census.

Melanie L. Campbell, BWR National Convener and President & CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation shared, “Our goal with hosting this annual cross-generational forum focused specifically on Black women from varying backgrounds is to strategize and organize ourselves in a way that continues to expand and strengthen the power of Black women’s leadership and moves a policy agenda focused on our needs forward.” See the BWR “Women of Power” Policy Forum photo gallery.

To learn more about BWR and the annual “Power of the Sister Vote” poll:

Visit UnityCampaign.org to read the 2019 BWR/ESSENCE Poll results in its entirety.

Watch the Facebook video playback of the 2019 BWR Policy Forum on #RolandMartinUnfiltered.

Listen or watch the media briefing for the 2019 BWR/ESSENCE “Power of the Sister Vote” Poll.

Read the ESSENCE poll article on the BWR/ESSENCE Poll.

###
The Black Women’s Roundtable is an empowerment program from the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, a nonprofit organization that works to engage, educate, organize and mobilize African Americans of all ages to participate in our democracy. Through educational programs and leadership training, the Coalition works to expand, strengthen, and empower Black communities to make voting and civic participation a cultural responsibility and tradition. Follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.

https://www.ncbcp.org/programs/bwr/

Why are black/negro/african-Americans the worst politicians and leaders?

Black communities: Let's discard the crippling mindset, Staff Writer, Florida Times-Union, Published 11:01 p.m. ET Nov. 14, 2010

As a black male having survived Jim Crow segregation and racism of the 1950s and 1960s, I must now address an epidemic problem that permeates black communities throughout America.

We (blacks) as an ethnic group need to wake up and shrug off this crippling mindset of "victimhood" and "group think" that has become the current trend in black cultural American society.

We have now come as far as we can on the issue of "civil rights," and the issue nationwide has turned into a matter of Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
34 "special privileges." We, as blacks, have opportunities today that were not available to us long ago, and yet many within our ethnic group have chosen to ignore them. The truth hurts.

We have transcended from a position of physical slavery to that of mental slavery, and have gone from being in bondage on a plantation to bondage to the government or massive wards to the state. Crime is on an epidemic rise within poor black communities. The roots of it are the destruction of the traditional nuclear family unit of husband, wife and children along with a lack of moral character, respect, dignity and parental responsibility.

Pull your freaking pants up, black man, and grow up. It's disgusting, disgraceful, embarrassing, shameful and pathetic for what so many of us have become. It is no wonder that society looks down upon us with such disdain.

I lived during the true civil rights struggle and was a part of it. It is not racism that is causing black youth today to drop out of school, join gangs, engage in promiscuity, criminal behavior and sit around expecting handouts when we are able bodied individuals capable of taking care of ourselves.

Wake up my people, wake up! Don't blame the white man for your failures and your negligence in academic perseverance when you chose a life of drugs and embrace the "gang-banger" thug culture. Instead, get all the education you can and put that education to work to uplift our race in order to gain world respect, learn to create jobs for ourselves, become entrepreneurs and clean up your communities.

I hate to admit it, but we have become our own worst enemy. You are not a victim unless you make yourself, or let yourself, become a victim. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

This is not meant to stereotype everyone in our black ethnic group but to address the growing trend of "dumbing down" instead of "smarting up." No more excuses. Those who call themselves "progressive" often are the ones who are "regressive."
The time is far past due that we stand on our own feet and stop listening to these self-righteous, self-appointed phony "poverty pimp," so-called black leaders.

The future we save may be our own. No more excuses! Wake up! https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/letters/2010/11/15/black-communities-lets-discard-cripplingmindset/15924550007/

NYT: The Corruption of the Congressional Black Caucus, By Washington Examiner, February 14, 2010 5:00 am

Today’s New York Times has a bombshell of an investigation into the Congressional Black Caucus. Here’s an interesting fact from the article — “All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.” The bottom line is that it appears the Congressional Black Caucus is devoted to two things — spending millions of dollars on lavish parties and raising money from corporations and lobbyists. And many of the caucus’ fundraising arrangements are suspect at best:

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.) The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.

There is, of course, the pernicious influence of lobbyists at work:

Even as it has used its status as a civil rights organization to become a fund-raising power in Washington, the caucus has had to fend off criticism of ties to companies whose business is seen by some as detrimental to its black Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
35 constituents.

These include cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and the rent-to-own industry, which has become a particular focus of consumer advocates for its practice of charging high monthly fees for appliances, televisions and computers.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

Not influenced them, eh?
For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.

And:

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

This means, for example, that the lobbyists and executives from coal, nuclear and power giants like Peabody Energy and Entergy helped draft a report in the caucus’s name that includes their positions on controversial issues. One policy document issued by the Black Caucus Institute last year asserted that the financial impact of climate change legislation should be weighed before it is passed, a major industry stand.

The New York Times deserves big credit for not pulling any punches on this out of political correctness. Read the whole thing.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/1338977/nyt-the-corruption-of-thecongressional-black-caucus/

Congressional Black Corruption, By Michelle Malkin, July 13, 2016 4:00 AM Too many black leaders would rather break the law to line their pockets than take care of their constituents. We’re naming names.

If Black Lives Matter, then why have entrenched members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent more time enriching themselves than taking care of their neglected constituents? Too many social-justice protesters are busy throwing shade, rocks, bottles, concrete blocks, and vicious death threats at police officers of all colors who are trying to keep the peace.

Instead of moaning about “#WhitePrivilege,” I invite radical racial identity warriors to join me in taking on the black political elites selling out their people. Help expose the most crooked members of the caucus of Congressional Black Corruption:

Corrine Brown: This twelve-term Democrat from Florida received a 24-count federal indictment last week while her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues tried to drown out the news with diversionary gun-control theatrics. Brown and her chief of staff are charged with creating a fraudulent education charity to collect over $800,000 in donations from major corporations and philanthropies for their own private slush fund between 2012 and early 2016.

The director of the hoax group, dubbed One Door for Education, Inc., pleaded guilty last year to fraud and conspiracy.

Prosecutors say that two relatives of Brown and her chief of staff steered tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits to their accounts. The charitable contributions paid for lavish galas, NFL tickets, concert luxury box seats, golf tournaments, and apparently Brown’s tax bills.

Despite raising nearly a million bucks, Brown’s “charity” issued only two measly educational scholarships for minority Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
36 students. So while shamelessly claiming this week to be a martyr akin to the murdered Dallas police officers and victims of the Orlando jihad, Brown is embroiled in a sordid scandal that exploited black children to line her own pockets.

You can’t blame righty or whitey this time, Crooked Corrine.

Chaka Fattah: This eleven-term Pennsylvania Democrat was convicted in late June on 23 charges of racketeering, money laundering, and fraud, along with four other co-defendants. His son was sentenced earlier this year to a fiveyear prison term after being found guilty of 22 counts of separate federal bank- and tax-fraud charges related to his misuse of business loans and federal education contracts to pay for designer clothes, massive bar tabs, and luxury cars.

Fattah the Elder’s crimes are tied to schemes to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan. Like his rotten apple of a son, Fattah siphoned off federal grant money and nonprofit funds (including donations to his educational foundation — sound familiar?) to pay off political consultants.

The con artists inside your own communities are your own worst enemies.

Eddie Bernice Johnson: This twelve-term Democrat from Dallas similarly helped steer thousands of dollars in Congressional Black Caucus Foundation college scholarships to four family members and two of her top aide’s children, in violation of the nonprofit’s rules.

Maxine Waters: This 13-term Beltway swamp queen from California and past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus walked away with a slap on the wrist from the toothless House Ethics Committee in 2012 after being charged with multiple ethics violations related to her meddling in minority-owned OneUnited Bank.

The banks’ executives donated $12,500 to Mad Maxine’s congressional campaigns. Her husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into OneUnited. As stockholders, they profited handsomely from their relationship with the bank.

And vice versa. After Waters’ office personally intervened and lobbied the Treasury Department in 2008, the financial institution received $12 million in federal TARP bailout money — despite another government agency’s concluding that the bank operated “without effective underwriting standards” and engaged “in speculative investment practices.” Top bank executive Kevin Cohee squandered money on a company-financed Porsche and beachfront mansion in Santa Monica, Calif. After the federal bailout of Fannie and Freddie, OneUnited’s stock in the government-sponsored enterprises plunged to a value estimated at less than $5 million. Only through Waters’s intervention was OneUnited able to secure an emergency meeting with the Treasury and its then-secretary, Henry Paulson.

Waters’s government cronyism earned her a “Most Corrupt Member of Congress” designation from the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Then there’s Alcee Hastings, the twelve-term Florida corruptocrat impeached by a federal judge in 1989 for making false statements and producing false documents in a 1983 criminal trial accusing him of seeking a $150,000 bribe. He went on to win a seat in Congress in 1992 and used his position to enrich his various lady friends – he paid one girlfriend-turned-congressional-deputy-district-director more than half a million dollars in salary, and paid another female “staff assistant” to accompany him on his endless junkets abroad.

Those few are just the start. There’s Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee and the Medicare fraud racket involving a local hospital in her district; Greg Meeks and his $400,000 earmark for a fake health clinic in New York City and Caribbean resort jaunts underwritten by convicted financier Allen Stanford; and Wisconsin’s Gwen Moore and her lavishly paid friends and family. And, of course, the ethics violations, shady business deals, and tax troubles from New York’s Charlie Rangel deserve their own encyclopedia.

My message for BLM? Put down your black-power fists and weapons. Give a rest to the “#BlueLivesMurder” and “Fry ’em up like bacon” chants. Aim your outrage at self-serving black leaders and their abject failure to improve black people’s lives.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/congressional-black-caucus-corrupt-democrats/

In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse, By Eric Lipton and Eric Lichtblau, Feb. 13, 2010 WASHINGTON � When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like WalMart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
37 town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference � nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” � than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.

At the galas, lobbyists and executives who give to caucus charities get to mingle with lawmakers. They also get seats on committees the caucus has set up to help members of Congress decide what positions to take on the issues of the day. Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them. “We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”
But many campaign finance experts question the unusual structure. “The claim that this is a truly philanthropic motive is bogus � it’s beyond credulity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, a nonpartisan group that monitors campaign finance and ethics issues. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to have these links. They provide another pocket, and a very deep pocket, for special-interest money that is intended to benefit and influence officeholders.” Not all caucus members support the donors’ goals, and some issues, like a debate last year over whether to ban menthol cigarettes, have produced divisions.

But caucus members have attracted increasing scrutiny from ethics investigators. All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.

And an examination by The Times shows what can happen when companies offer financial support to caucus members.

For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.

Growing Influence
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
38 The caucus started out 40 years ago as a political club of a handful of black members of Congress. Now it is at the apex of its power: President Obama is a former member, though he was never very active.

Its members, all Democrats, include the third-ranking House member, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; 4 House committee chairmen; and 18 subcommittee leaders. Among those are Representative Charles E.

Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Black Caucus members at a gospel event at the September 2007 conference.

There are hundreds of caucuses in Congress, representing groups as disparate as Hispanic lawmakers and those with an interest in Scotland. And other members of Congress have nonprofit organizations.

But the Congressional Black Caucus stands alone for its money-raising prowess. As it has gained power, its nonprofit groups � one an outright charity, the other a sort of research group � have seen a surge in contributions, nearly doubling from 2001 to 2008.

Besides the caucus charities, many members � including Mr. Clyburn and Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri � also have personal or family charities, which often solicit donations from companies that give to the caucus. And spouses have their own group that sponsors a golf and tennis fund-raiser.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization � one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

Officials from the Association of American Railroads, another major donor, used their board positions to urge the inclusion of language recommending increased spending on the national freight rail system. A lobbyist for Verizon oversaw a debate on a section that advocated increased federal grants to expand broadband Internet service.

And Larry Duncan, a Lockheed Martin lobbyist, served on a caucus institute panel that recommended that the United States form closer ties with Liberia, even as his company was negotiating a huge airport contract there.

The companies say their service to the caucus is philanthropic. “Our charitable donations are charitable donations,” said David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, which has given caucus charities as much as $1.3 million since 2004, the Times analysis shows, including a donation to a capital fund used to pay off the mortgage of the caucus headquarters.

Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, acknowledged that the companies want to influence members. In fact, the fund-raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donation, the greater the access, like a private reception that includes members of Congress for those who give more than $100,000. “They are trying to get the attention of the C.B.C. members,” Ms. Scott said. “And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. They’re in business, and they want to deal with people who have influence and power.” She also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People � you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.

Ms. Scott said she, too, had heard criticism that the caucus foundation takes too much from companies seen as hurting blacks . But she said she was still willing to take their money. “Black people gamble. Black people smoke. Black people drink,” she said in an interview. “And so if these companies want to take some of the money they’ve earned off of our people and give it to us to support good causes, then we take it.”
Big Parties, Big Money
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
39 The biggest caucus event of the year is held each September in Washington.

The 2009 event began with a rooftop party at the new W Hotel, with the names of the biggest sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies Amgen and Eli Lilly, beamed in giant letters onto the walls, next to the logo of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. A separate dinner party and ceremony, sponsored by Disney at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, featured the jazz pianist Marcus Johnson.

The next night, AT&T sponsored a dinner reception at the Willard InterContinental Washington, honoring Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees consumer protection issues.

The Southern Company, the dominant electric utility in four Southeastern states, spent more than $300,000 to host an awards ceremony the next night honoring Ms. Lee, the black caucus chairwoman, with Shaun Robinson, a TV personality from “Access Hollywood,” as a co-host. The bill for limousine services � paid by Southern � exceeded $11,000.

A separate party, sponsored by Macy’s, featured a fashion show and wax models of historic African-American leaders.

All of this was just a buildup for the final night and the biggest event � a black-tie dinner for 4,000, which included President Obama, the actor Danny Glover and the musician Wyclef Jean.

Annual spending on the events, including an annual prayer breakfast that Coca-Cola sponsors and several dozen policy workshops typically sponsored by other corporations, has more than doubled since 2001, costing $3.9 million in 2008. More than $350,000 went to the official decorator and nearly $400,000 to contractors for lighting and show production, according to tax records. (By comparison, the caucus spent $372,000 on internships in 2008, tax records show.)
Caucus members accepting a donation to the foundation from Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical giant and a major contributor.

The sponsorship of these parties by big business is usually counted as a donation in the caucus books. But sometimes the corporations pay vendors directly and simply name the caucus or an individual caucus member as an “honoree” in disclosure records filed with the Senate.
(The New York Times Company is listed as having paid the foundation $5,000 to $15,000 in 2008. It was the cost of renting a booth to sell newspapers at the annual conference.) Foundation officials say profit from the event is enough to finance programs like seminars on investments, home ownership and healthy living; housing for Washington interns; and about $600,000 in scholarships.

Interns and students interviewed praised the caucus.
“The internship for me came at a very critical moment in my life,” said Ervin Johnson, 24, an intern in 2007, placed by the Justice Department. “Most people don’t have that opportunity.” Still, Ms. Scott, the foundation’s chief executive, said that members of the caucus’s board had complained about the ballooning bills for the annual conference. And some donors have asked that their money go only toward programs like scholarships. She blamed the high prices charged by vendors mandated by the Washington Convention Center.

Legislative Interests
The companies that host events at the annual conference are engaged in some of the hottest battles in Washington, and they frequently turn to caucus members for help.

Internet poker companies have been big donors, fighting moves to restrict their growth. Caucus members have been among their biggest backers.

Amgen and DaVita, which dominate the kidney treatment and dialysis business nationwide, have donated as much as $1.5 million over the last five years to caucus charities, and the caucus has been one of their strongest allies in a bid to win broader federal reimbursements.

AT&T and Verizon, sponsors of the caucus charities for years, have turned to the caucus in their effort to prevent new federal rules governing how cellphone carriers operate Internet services on their wireless networks.

But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores.

Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances, with Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
40 critics saying the industry’s advertisements prey on low-income consumers, offering the short-term promise of walking away with a big-screen TV while hiding big long-term fees. Faced with rules that could destroy their business, the industry called on the caucus.

In 2007, it retained Zehra Buck, a former aide to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and a caucus member, to help expand a lobbying campaign. Its trade association in 2008 became the exclusive sponsor of an annual caucus foundation charity event where its donated televisions, computers and other equipment were auctioned, with the proceeds going to scholarships. It donated to the campaigns of at least 10 caucus members, and to political action committees run by the caucus and its individual members.

It also encouraged member stores to donate to personal charities run by caucus members or to public schools in their districts. Mr. Clay, the Missourian, received $14,000 in industry contributions in 2008 for the annual golf tournament his family runs in St. Louis. The trade association also held a fund-raising event for him in Reno, Nev. “I’ll always do my best to protect what really matters to you,” Mr. Clay told rent-to-own executives, who agreed to hold their 2008 annual convention in St. Louis, his home district. Mr. Clay declined a request for an interview.

On a visit to Washington, Larry Carrico, then president of the rent-to-own trade association, offered to donate computers and other equipment to a nonprofit job-training group in Chicago named in honor of Mr. Davis, the Illinois congressman who in 2002 voted in favor of tough restrictions on the industry.

Mr. Davis switched sides. Mr. Carrico traveled to Chicago to hand over the donations, including a van with “Congressman Danny K. Davis Job Training Program” painted on its side, all of which helped jump-start a charity run by Lowry Taylor, who also works as a campaign aide to Mr. Davis.

In an interview, Mr. Carrico said support from caucus members came because they understood that his industry had been unfairly criticized and that it provided an important service to consumers in their districts.

While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions � an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates. “It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.” The industry’s own bill, introduced by a caucus member, has not been taken up, but it does not really matter because the move to pass stricter legislation has ground to a halt. “Without the support of the C.B.C.,” John Cleek, the president of the rent-to-own association, acknowledged in an industry newsletter in 2008, “our mission in Washington would fail.” Ron Nixon and Griffin Palmer contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 14, 2010, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/politics/14cbc.html

The Black 'Skull and Bones' - The 'Boule' Secret Society

In 1904, the first African -American Greek Secret Society was formed in Philadelphia, by Dr. Henry Minton and five of his colleagues. The Boule, (an acronym for Sigma Pi Phi) and pronounced "boo-lay"), was formed to bring together a select group of educated Black men and women.

Fashioned after Yale's Skull and Bones, the Boule historically takes pride in having provided leadership and service to Black Americans during the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, and the Civil Rights Movement.

What could the Boule offer America's Blacks in the early 20th century? Joining the exclusive secret society offered advancement and perks to select Blacks in return for loyalty to its objectives.

The upper tenth of Blacks started to live the good life as Boule members, while the majority of ordinary Blacks were disenfranchised. But what were the Boule's objectives?

REMAKING OF THE HOUSE NEGRO
The Boule recruits top Blacks in American Society into its ranks. Today, 5000+ Archons, (male Boule members) and their wives, (Archousais), with 112 chapters, make up the wealthiest group of Black men and women on the planet. "Archon" means "demon" - the kind that like to keep hidden.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
41 But to who does the Boule really serve? The Satanic (mostly white) global elite! As long as the Black member conforms to the rules, the riches will be in abundance; if not, down comes the hatchet. Blackmail is part of the deal.

This Masonic secret society has a pyramid style like all the rest. The lower ranks are kept from knowing what the upper ranks are doing.

The early 20th century was a period of reconstruction. Marcus Garvey's "Back to Africa" Movement was in full swing.

Garvey represented genuine Black leadership. W.E.B. Dubois, founding member of the NYC chapter of the Boule said, "The Boule was created to keep the black professional away from Marcus Garvey".

The remaking of the House Negro was necessary to institute a group of Blacks who had a vested interest in protecting the Elite White System. It was about selling out brothers and sisters for power and money. The majority of Black lawyers, doctors, engineers and accountants were members of this secret club.

PREDATORY INTENTIONS
According to Bobby Hemmitt, underground Metaphysician and Occultist lecturer, "This Black elite society based on Skull and Bones (Yale) was chosen by the U.S. Government (Illuminati) to run Black neighborhoods." See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA6jmaoG7V8
Conspiracy Theorist and Futurologist Steve Cokely, had this to say: "Anywhere there are prominent professional Blacks, chances are they're in the Boule". Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson are reported to have been Boule members, among many other high profile, successful and moneyed Blacks such as Barack Obama, Bill Cosby, Al Sharpton and Thurgood Marshall. See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7gDJfRICA
The members of the Boule pose as Freedom Fighters or Civil Rights Activists on the surface. In truth, the elite members are operating for personal gain. The Boule works in concert with their masters in maintaining the grip of Illuminati supremacy on their people.

ADVISERS TO THE KING
The Boule is another arm of the nefarious secret societies that recruit, indoctrinate and cull for the dark forces.

Therein are perks galore, power and notoriety all lying in wait for the easily compromised soul.

In the Greek system, the Boule was the Lower House of Parliament. Charged with organizing the affairs of the city for the King. Let that sink in.

This is an ancient story. The New World Order is The Old World Order. The elite Blacks of the Boule are culling and controlling their own for a slice of the elite white man's pie.

COMPROMISING SITUATIONS
Like other secret societies, the Boule encourages homosexual trysts as initiation practices. This must be done to join the ranks. Bobby Hemmit says, "Any kind of top-notch Negro gets together and they f*ck each other." These perversions are then cataloged and stored on record. Later, if needed, these abuses may be used as bargaining tools in the ULTIMATE GAME. What is the Ultimate Game? Capturing human souls.

The enemy may appear to have a white face but it goes much deeper than that. This is a force cloaked within many facades, personas, fictions and governing powers. See here: http://masonfitup.blogspot.com/2009/12/masonicinitiation.html.

CONCLUSION:

We, the people, have been handed cultural, political and religious belief systems used to great advantage by these generational Satanists and lying collectives.

These elite systems promote dissension, division, hatred, bigotry and war. According to the ruling powers, people are objects that need to be controlled. Therefore, we have men and women in high places that are soulless and beyond the reach of normal reasoning processes.

We have an ancient enemy with a large collection of demonic assistants. The evil elite has had a good run. Though they may be certain skin colors, certain nationalities and creeds, they are apart from you and me. They have long ago Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
42 abdicated any and all connections to a shared humanity. ---
Baltimore, MD Demographics
A map of Baltimore's Population by Race
Race
Population
Percent

Black
335,615

57.3%

White
157,296

26.9%

Hispanic
45,927

7.8%

Multiracial
21,088

3.6%

Asian
21,020

3.6%

Native American/Other
4,762

0.8%
Baltimore, Maryland had a population of 585,708 in 2020. It was 26.9% White, 57.3% Black, 3.6% Asian, 7.8% Hispanic, 0.8% Native American/Other, and 3.6% Multiracial. This map presents the population of Baltimore, with one dot drawn for each person counted in the 2020 Census, color-coded by race.

Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is the most populous. This ranking is based on the Census definition of a place, which includes incorporated places like cities, towns, and villages, as well as unincorporated census-designated places (CDPs).

Baltimore's White Population
157,296 residents of Baltimore identify as White, or 26.9%. This makes the White share of the population of Baltimore considerably less than the White share of the population of Maryland (47.2% White). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #439 in terms of White residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is less White than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (44% White), Brooklyn Park (54.6% White), Lansdowne (45.5% White), Towson (66.3% White), and Arbutus (63.1% White).

Baltimore's Black Population
335,615 residents of Baltimore identify as Black, or 57.3%. This makes the Black share of the population of Baltimore considerably larger than the Black share of the population of Maryland (29.1% Black). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #56 in terms of Black residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is more Black than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (20% Black), Brooklyn Park (20.7% Black), Lansdowne (23.3% Black), Towson (17.2% Black), and Arbutus (11.9% Black).

Baltimore's Asian Population
21,020 residents of Baltimore identify as Asian, or 3.6%. This makes the Asian share of the population of Baltimore roughly similar to the Asian share of the population of Maryland (6.8% Asian). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #158 in terms of Asian residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is less Asian than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (3.9% Asian), Brooklyn Park (3.7% Asian), Lansdowne (4.1% Asian), Towson (6.3% Asian), and Arbutus (14.3% Asian).

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
43 Baltimore's Hispanic Population
45,927 residents of Baltimore identify as Hispanic, or 7.8%. This makes the Hispanic share of the population of Baltimore roughly similar to the Hispanic share of the population of Maryland (11.8% Hispanic). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #180 in terms of Hispanic residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is more Hispanic than neighboring Towson (5.5% Hispanic), and Arbutus (4.9% Hispanic). Baltimore is less Hispanic than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (25.8% Hispanic), Brooklyn Park (14.2% Hispanic), and Lansdowne (20.8% Hispanic).

Baltimore's Native American/Other Population
4,762 residents of Baltimore identify as American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Other, or

0.8%. This makes the Native American/Other share of the population of Baltimore roughly similar to the Native American/Other share of the population of Maryland (0.8% Native American/Other). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #181 in terms of Native American/Other residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is more Native American/Other than neighboring Towson (0.5% Native American/Other), and Arbutus (0.6% Native American/Other). Baltimore is less Native American/Other than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (1% Native American/Other), Brooklyn Park (0.9% Native American/Other), and Lansdowne (1% Native American/Other).

Baltimore's Multiracial Population
21,088 residents of Baltimore identify as Multiracial, or 3.6%. This makes the Multiracial share of the population of Baltimore roughly similar to the Multiracial share of the population of Maryland (4.4% Multiracial). Of the 536 places in Maryland, Baltimore is ranked #342 in terms of Multiracial residents as a share of the population.

Baltimore is less Multiracial than neighboring Baltimore Highlands (5.2% Multiracial), Brooklyn Park (5.9% Multiracial), Lansdowne (5.3% Multiracial), Towson (4.2% Multiracial), and Arbutus (5.3% Multiracial).

Source: 2020 Census State Redistricting Data and Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles.

https://www.censusdots.com/race/baltimore-md-demographics

23 Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math, per state test results, by Chris Papst, Mon, February 6th 2023 at 10:30 PM, Updated Wed, January 31st 2024 at 2:45 PM

BALTIMORE (WBFF) — Baltimore City is facing a devastating reality as the latest round of state test scores are released.

Project Baltimore analyzed the results and found a shocking number of Baltimore City schools where not a single student is doing math at grade level. CONTINUING COVERAGE Baltimore mother calls on someone, anyone, to fix city schools FOX45 News questions leaders about math scores in City Schools; oversight hearing called Mayor Scott ignores questions about 23 schools without students proficient in math Ben Crump on 'dismal' Baltimore math test scores, 'We can't look the other way' “We're not living up to our potential,” said Jovani Patterson, a Baltimore resident who made headlines in January 2022, when he filed a lawsuit against Baltimore City Schools. The suit claims the district is failing to educate students and, in the process, misusing taxpayer funds.
“We, the taxpayer, are funding our own demise,” Patterson said at the time.

ALSO READ | City student passes 3 classes in four years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA ALSO READ | 77% tested at Baltimore high school read at elementary level, some at kindergarten level Patterson was born in Baltimore. He has seen the failures firsthand. But when Project Baltimore showed him the latest test results for the city, he was momentarily rendered speechless. “My immediate reaction is, take your kids out of these schools,” said Patterson.

The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
44 Comprehensive Assessment Program.

Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7 percent of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93 percent could not do math at grade level.

In Baltimore City, just 7 percent of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93 percent could not do math at grade level (WBFF)
But that’s not all; Project Baltimore combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given.

Project Baltimore found, in 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math. Not a single student.
“It just sounds like these schools, now, have turned into essentially babysitters with no accountability,” said Patterson. “This is the future of our city. We’ve got to change this.” Among the list of 23 schools, there are 10 high schools, eight elementary schools, three Middle/High schools and two Elementary/Middle schools.

Exactly 2,000 students, in total, took the state math test at these schools. Not one could do math at grade level. “These kids can't do math. You're not preparing them to buy groceries. You're not preparing them to do accounting, to count their own money. You're not preparing them to read contracts and negotiate salaries,” said Patterson.

ALSO READ | 13 Baltimore City High Schools, zero students proficient in math ALSO READ | Baltimore test scores hit 13-year low as civil rights leader calls for CEO to be replaced Maryland Governor Wes Moore delivered his first State of the State address last week. “We made the largest investment in public education by any governor in our state’s history,” Moore said during his speech, making his feelings about public education clear. It’s one of his top priorities. “We can no longer separate our vision for economic prosperity from the duty to make Maryland’s public schools the best in the nation,” Moore said.

23 Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math (WBFF) After his State of the State address, Project Baltimore reached out to Moore’s office, asking to speak with him about his plan to improve education. Before becoming Governor, Moore lived in Baltimore. Project Baltimore wanted to ask him how he plans to help city students, especially those who attend the 23 schools.

Governor Moore’s office did not respond. But City Schools did send Project Baltimore a statement with steps it’s taking to improve math scores, including professional development for teachers, summer learning and an extended learning period at the end of the day.

The statement said in part, “We're confident these instructional strategies will help us regain the momentum and progress we experienced before the pandemic.”
During his State of the State address, Gov. Wes Moore made his feelings about public education clear. It’s one of his top priorities (WBFF)
“Zero percent. What are you preparing these kids for?” said Patterson. “Are we expecting these kids to kill off themselves? I mean, we see the number of teen shootings happening just this year. What jobs are we preparing these kids for? That's the future.”
Project Baltimore found three additional schools where zero students tested proficient in math, which we did not include in the list of 23. One of those schools is for incarcerated youth, and the other two are for students with disabilities. And it’s important to note, another 20 Baltimore City Schools had just one or two students test proficient in math.

Baltimore City Schools with just 1 or 2 students proficient in Math Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
45 Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy West
Carver Vocational-Technical High
ConneXions: A Community Based Arts School
Dickey Hill Elementary/Middle
Digital Harbor High School
Dr. Bernard Harris, Sr., Elementary
Edmondson-Westside High
Eutaw-Marshburn Elementary
Frederick Elementary
Gwynns Falls Elementary
Lillie May Carroll Jackson School
Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High
National Academy Foundation
Patterson High
Reginald F. Lewis High
Robert W. Coleman Elementary
Sinclair Lane Elementary
Stadium School
Tench Tilghman Elementary/Middle
Westport Academy

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-results-23-baltimore-schools-have-zero-studentsproficient-in-math-jovani-patterson-maryland-comprehensive-assessment-program-maryland-governor-wes-moore Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
46 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer (LGBTQ) Data Points in the United States of America (U.S.A.) 2025

EXTERNAL
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer (LGBTQ) Data Points in the United States of America (U.S.A.) 2025

The Billionaires Behind the LGBT Movement, Jennifer Bilek, January 21, 2020

Not long ago, the gay rights movement was a small group of people struggling to follow their dispositions within a larger heterosexual culture. Gays and lesbians were underdogs, vastly outnumbered and loosely organized, sometimes subject to discrimination and abuse. Their story was tragic, their suffering dramatized by AIDS and Rock Hudson, Brokeback Mountain and Matthew Shepard.

Today’s movement, however, looks nothing like that band of persecuted outcasts. The LGBT rights agenda—note the addition of “T”—has become a powerful, aggressive force in American society. Its advocates stand at the top of media, academia, the professions, and, most important, Big Business and Big Philanthropy. Consider the following case.

Jon Stryker is the grandson of Homer Stryker, an orthopedic surgeon who founded the Stryker Corporation. Based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Stryker Corporation sold $13.6 billion in surgical supplies and software in 2018. Jon, heir to the fortune, is gay. In 2000 he created the Arcus Foundation, a nonprofit serving the LGBT community, because of his own experience coming out as homosexual. Arcus has given more than $58.4 million to programs and organizations doing LGBT-related work between 2007 and 2010 alone, making it one of the largest LGBT funders in the world.

Stryker gave more than $30 million to Arcus himself in that three-year period, through his stock in Stryker Medical Corporation.

Stryker founded Arcus right when the AIDS epidemic was being brought under control in the U.S. Before he started Arcus, he was president of Depot Landmark LLC, a development company specializing in rehabilitating historical buildings. This would serve him well when he later renovated space for Arcus in Kalamazoo. He was also a founding board member of Greenleaf Trust, a privately held wealth management firm also in Kalamazoo.

Jon’s sister Ronda Stryker is married to William Johnston, chairman of Greenleaf Trust. She is also vice chair of Spelman College, where Arcus recently bestowed a $2 million grant in the name of lesbian feminist Audre Lorde. The money is earmarked for a queer studies program. Ronda and Johnston have gifted Spelman $30 million dollars overall, the largest gift from living donors in its 137-year history. She is also a trustee of Kalamazoo College (where Arcus bestowed a social justice leadership grant for $23 million in 2012), as well as a member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows.

Pat Stryker, another sister to Jon, has worked closely with gay male Tim Gill. Gill operates one of the largest LGBT nonprofits in America and has been close to the Stryker family since Jon created Arcus. In 1999, Tim Gill sold his stakes to Quark, his computer software company, and went to work running the Gill Foundation in Colorado. Working closely with Pat Stryker and two other wealthy philanthropists, who together became known as the four horsemen due to their ruthless political strategies, they set out to change Colorado, a red state, to blue. They proceeded to pour half a billion dollars into small groups advocating LGBT agendas. Gill noted in his opening introduction for Jon Stryker at the 2015 GLSEN Respect Awards that, since knowing each other, he and Jon have “plotted, schemed, hiked and skied together,” while also “punishing the wicked and rewarding the good.” Prior to 2015, Stryker had already built the political infrastructure to drive gender identity ideology and transgenderism across the globe, donating millions to small and large entities. These included hundreds of thousands of dollars to ILGA, an LGBT organization for equality in Europe and Central Asia with 54 countries participating, and Transgender Europe, a voice for the trans community in Europe and Asia with 43 countries participating (Transgender Europe has also funded smaller organizations like TENI, Transgender Equality Network Ireland).

In 2008 Arcus founded Arcus Operating Foundation, an arm of the foundation that organizes conferences, leadership Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
47 programs, and research publications. At one 2008 meeting in Bellagio, Italy, 29 international leaders committed to expanding global philanthropy to support LGBT rights. At the meeting, along with Stryker and Ise Bosch, founder of Dreilinden Fund in Germany, was Michael O’Flaherty—one of the rapporteurs for the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (principles outlined in Indonesia in 2006). With the Yogyakarta Principles, the seeds were planted to bring in and attach genderidentity ideology to our legal structures. O’Flaherty has been an elected member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee since 2004.

Out of the Bellagio meeting, Arcus created MAP, the LGBT Movement Advancement Project, to track the complex system of advocacy and funding that would promote gender identity/transgenderism in the culture. Simultaneously, the LGBTI Core Group was formed as an informal cross-regional group of United Nations member countries to represent LGBTI human rights issues to the U.N. Core Group members funded by Arcus include Outright Action International and Human Rights Commission. Core Group member countries include Albania, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and the European Union, as well as the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These initiatives promote gender identity and transgenderism by training leaders in political activism, leadership, transgender law, religious liberty, education, and civil rights. The lineup of Arcus-supported organizations advancing the cause is daunting: Victory Institute, the Center for American Progress, the ACLU, the Transgender Law Center, Trans Justice Funding Project, OutRight Action International, Human Rights Watch, GATE, Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), The Council for Global Equality, the U.N., Amnesty International, and GLSEN. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), in partnership with Advocates for Youth, Answer, GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), has initiated a campaign using a rights-based framework to inform approaches in reshaping cultural narratives of sexuality and reproductive health. Sixty-one additional organizations have signed a letter supporting an overhaul of current curriculums.

In 2013 Adrian Coman, a veteran of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (a driver of transgender ideology that has begun initiatives to normalize transgender children), was named director of the international human rights program at the Arcus Foundation, to drive gender identity ideology globally. Previously, Coman served as program director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. And in 2015, Arcus worked closely with and funded NoVo Foundation programs for transgenderism. NoVo was founded by Peter Buffett, son of billionaire Warren Buffett.

These programs and initiatives advance gender identity ideology by supporting various faith organizations, sports and cultural associations, police department training and educational programs in grade schools, high schools (GLSEN, whose founder was brought to Arcus in 2012 as board of directors, has influenced many K-12 school curricula), and universities and medical institutions—including the American Psychological Foundation (APF). Arcus funds help APF (the leading psychology organization in the United States) develop guidelines for establishing trans-affirmative psychological practices. Psychologists are “encouraged” by those monies to modify their understanding of gender, broadening the range of biological reality to include abstract, medical identities.

Concurrently, Arcus drives gender identity ideology and transgenderism in the marketplace by encouraging businesses to invest in LGBT causes. Lest we forget, Stryker is heir to a $13.6 billion medical corporation. One only has to look at the corporations supporting LGBT during pride month this year to ascertain the success Arcus has had in this arena.

As the example of the Arcus Foundation shows, the LGB civil rights movement of yore has morphed into a relentless behemoth, one that has strong ties to the medical industrial complex and global corporatists. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobbying entity in Congress. Although activists present the LGBT movement as a weak, powerless group suffering oppression and discrimination, in truth it wields enormous power and influence—power it increasingly uses to remake our laws, schools, and society.

Photo by U.S. Department of the Interior via Creative Commons. Image cropped.

https://firstthings.com/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement/

The LGBT movement is over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmDLGTGFw0Q
Discrimination against LGBT people doesn't exist, Published 5:09 p.m., ET, Feb. 7, 2016 Instead of criticizing our lawmakers from extending civil rights to LGBT, we should be celebrating; here’s why. There is no evidence of systemic discrimination against any of the people groups represented by this acronym. We have far Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
48 too many laws on our books already that are meaningless; having one of this nature to fix a problem that does not exist leaves open the probability of abuse in our court system.

You cannot legislate the decent treatment of people any more than we can legislate morality. At what point in time will we as a people begin to realize that the only effective government is a limited one. When will we stop looking for someone else to “make life fair,” when it is impossible to do so. Life is not fair, so get over that notion now.

The voters in Indiana will not punish lawmakers as The Star predicts. While most Hoosiers want equality, they are also smart enough to know that the LGBT lobby is trying convince us of a problem that does not exist.

Dave Poling
Indianapolis
https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/02/07/discrimination-lgbt-people-exist/79974200/

Biden to transgender Americans: 'Your president has your back', During his joint address to Congress, President Joe Biden called for the passage of the Equality Act to LGBTQ Americans and spoke directly to transgender Americans. April 28, 2021
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/biden-to-transgender-americans-your-president-has-your-back-111031877945 https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/05/62/52/03/1000_F_562520361_R4JEP2c2dMYdpVYM3vBEyySi4e6EE3U4.jpg

Homosexual promiscuity: breeding a national health problem, By David R. Usher and Cynthia L. Davis, September 2, 2012
"Marriage Equality" is perhaps the most convoluted canard of our time. Underneath the hood of the homosexual revolution churns the most serious avoidable health problems of our time.

The majority of our most dangerous sexual diseases emanate from the homosexual revolution and are transmitted to wives, infants, children, and men by LBGTQ individuals who are most often bisexual.

Bisexuals are the majority in the LBGTQ movement. Approximately 1.8% to 4% of Americans are bisexual. This broad gateway infects unsuspecting heterosexual Americans with serious or fatal diseases. The impact to heterosexual women is serious. 70% of HIV infections in women are attributed to heterosexual contact.

The impact of homosexuality on the rest of us can no longer be ignored:

Among female adults and adolescents that were diagnosed with HIV infection in 2009, 84.9% were infected through heterosexual contact.
25% of new HIV infections are women who are often straight.

HIV is the #14 cause of infant mortality (Table B). This is most often caused by women who have a bisexual husband or boyfriend.

There are about 1.2 million individuals infected with HIV in the United States. About 20% of them do not know they are infected and are spreading the disease invisibly.

Children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems.

The total death impact of promiscuity is difficult to quantify because so many other opportunistic fatal diseases are the final cause of death.

High rates of psychiatric disorders are well-known even in the Netherlands, where homosexuality is widely accepted.

Substance abuse is also common in the LGBTQ community. The rest of American often bears the costs of treatment for STD's and endless psychological treatment for confused individuals.

Homosexuality has been "legitimized" in our schools. It is considered an act of hate to question or oppose sexual perversion. Why do we teach homosexuality in our schools while strongly encouraging our children not to use drugs or smoke? Fatality data indicates that promiscuity and homosexuality are at least as dangerous to health and life as smoking or drugs.

In New York City, very high rates of risky homosexual practices are reported. Nearly 10% of sexually-active New York City high school students say they had at least one same-sex partner. Children do what they are taught. "Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students are not born that way. The most recent, extensive, and scientifically sound research finds that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental not genetic." Smoking is banned everywhere in America because of the risks imposed to others. We are tough on drinking and Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
49 driving for the same reasons. We can no longer give homosexuality a free pass because the grave healthcare burden it imposes on the rest of us. The taxpayers cannot "leave the room" to avoid being harmed.

Incubating a national health problem:

Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10% of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.

The incidence of HIV in men who have sex with men is 44 times that of heterosexual men, and 40 times greater than women
Homosexual men are 46 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract syphilis.

HIV is the #10 cause of death for black males and #24 for white males (Table D).

While there are far fewer lesbians than gays, lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have had over 50 sex partners than heterosexual women.
63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men (cite).

The majority of lesbians commonly have sex with men.

Gay advocacy overwhelms science
Ryan Sorba's authoritative history of gay advocacy documents how the homosexual revolution overwhelmed the scientific community in the 1970's and 1980's applied aggressive activism and now-debunked "studies" to achieve the impossible: diagnoses of homosexual disorders are no longer objective. A psychiatric disorder exists only if the individual subjectively discovers it. The majority of therapy focuses on solipsistic "affirmative therapy" (helping homosexuals feel comfortable with their behavior) instead of steering them to effective "change therapy" that could save their lives and relieve their mental anxieties.

Since psychiatric science does not recognize homosexuality as a diagnosable disorder, the policy responses of the CDC, psychological and psychiatric professions, and schools are limited to carefully encouraging condom use and spending vast sums of taxpayer monies taking care of ill and dying individuals.

Gay advocates now controlling the American Psychiatric Association created false science far more dangerous than Al Gore's debunked global warming theories. Gore's confabulations did not kill anyone.

Gay advocates blame the consequences of their behavior on us, demanding that science and taxpayers take care of them. Elton John blames "stigma" for causing the AIDS crisis, asserting that "love can fix the problem." If gay leaders truly loved their followers, would be addressing rampant promiscuity to save the lives of their followers instead of blaming everyone else.

Gay politics has become another big-government enterprise. It forces us to accept it, urges more youth to do it, and creates expensive problems requiring massive funding to clean up the mess.

Kinsey acolytes have perverted politics and science in ways not seen since the dark ages. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would "protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias.'" California is considering legislation guaranteeing that many children will die: S.B. 1172 will bar counselors from helping children recover from unwanted same-sex attractions.

Gay Marriage will not reduce homosexual promiscuity
Gay marriage is an absurd proposition. Dan Savage, a leader of the gay movement, promotes promiscuity. The homosexual revolution is founded on sexual promiscuity.

In states that have gay marriage, few men marry. Between 2004 and 2008, only 37% of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involved men.

There is no evidence that "coupling" or gay marriage has notable impact on gay promiscuity.

Marriage becomes a promiscuous government village
Gay marriage is destined to be a three-way marriage between two women and big government. When Suzie marries Joanie, the kids will most often be born of serial extramarital encounters (where men are unlikely to know that birth control is not being used).

Gay marriage establishes a superior four-income, two-mother, big government family. Marriage-as-village policy is a lucrative tentacular arrangement: women keep their own incomes, depending on government to force several men to provide multiple tax-free "child support" incomes.

The tremendous advantages of gay marriage for women are reflected in marriage data. Gay marriage is nearly twice as popular with women in Massachusetts, where 63% of gay marriages involved women between 2004 and 2008.

Gay politics overruns libertarianism and conservatism
Gay conservatism is an impossible concept. The gay movement will settle for nothing less than hard-core multiculturalist government.

GoProud pretends that gay marriage is a state issue while actively supporting it at the federal level. Gay marriage is very much a federal issue because DOMA exists. An onslaught of litigation intended to demolish DOMA is raining down on the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawsuits of every possible stripe are headed to the Supreme Court to force homosexuality on America.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
50 The Republican Party is allowed Homocon 2012 to be held at its convention and allowed leftists to participate in writing its 2012 platform — a move that may suppress or alienate a large segment of the conservative and Tea Party vote.

Glenn Beck now supports gay marriage. He is apparently unaware of the grave damage gay marriage will do to the rest of America.

Dear Glenn: Multicultural marriage divides America into two absolute classes depending solely on reproductive ability — with women entitled and men plantation bondservants to big government. God-given natural social, parental and economic rights will be fully usurped by government. Health care costs will soar due to illness and social problem grown due to the numbers of sexually-confused children and adults. Your pocket will be picked and your children indoctrinated whether you like it or not.

We must rescind irresponsible homosexual public policy from the lawbooks across-the-board and discourage homosexual behavior. We must not allow pansexuals to take over the conservative movement like they did the American Psychiatric Association. Their invasion is as dangerous to our socioeconomic fabric as the Occupy movement is to free enterprise.

America is burning down because of the demise of heterosexual marriage. Marriage-absence is the greatest socioeconomic problem we face. Our focus must be on restoring heterosexual marriage as the social norm.

Certainly, budget cuts are necessary. We must also learn from the political failure of "austerity" in France. If we do not change what the "Federal Sausage Machine" makes, it will continue generating mass social disaster. There will be no funding to clean it up, and angry voters will again swing to the hard left as they did in 2008.

Protecting Marriage Month:

The debate over gay marriage never should have left the starting gate. It has always been an illegitimate conversation. The hotbed of dangerous sexually-transmitted diseases transmitted from the homosexual population to the rest of America is the problem that must be addressed.

Where we do not provide special protections or affirmations for drug users, smokers, or criminals with behavioral problems, entertaining gay marriage, civil unions, and local ordinances giving homosexuals special rights is out of the question.
"Protecting Marriage Month" is a viral leafleting campaign initiated by the Center for Marriage Policy that every American can use to help others understand what is at stake. Businesses, politicians, and city councils should care about health and safety of women and children. We encourage everyone who backed Chick-Fil-A to join with us once again by downloading and actively distributing the Protecting Marriage Month leaflet during the month of September.

David R. Usher is President of the Center for Marriage Policy.

Cynthia L. Davis is Executive Director of the Center for Marriage Policy. https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/usher/120902

The Health Risks of Gay Sex, JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.

Executive Summary
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:

Levels of Promiscuity
Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

Physical Health
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

Mental Health
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
51 attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

Life Span
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

Monogamy
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Introduction
Back in the early 1980s, while working at Beth Israel Hospital, I vividly remember seeing healthy young gay men dying of a mysterious disease that researchers only later identified as a sexually transmitted disease AIDS. Over the years, I've seen many patients with that diagnosis die.

When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious. Without question, sexual promiscuity frequently spreads diseases, from trivial to serious to deadly. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 65 million Americans have an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD).1 There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.

I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages or even more so.2
Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.3 Nevertheless, there are at least five major areas of differences between gay and heterosexual relationships, each with specific medical consequences. Those differences include:

A. Levels of promiscuity
B. Physical health
C. Mental health
D. Life span
E. Definition of "monogamy"
A. Promiscuity
Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"4 Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average nonmonogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6 In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7
Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8 The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be "out" than "closeted." Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
52 and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."15 A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature.

Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18 B. Physical Health
Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Although both male and female homosexual practices lead to increases in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the practices and diseases are sufficiently different that they merit separate discussion.

1. Male Homosexual Behavior
Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:
"Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either 'active' or 'passive,' since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses."20
Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent.21
a. Anal-genital
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24 The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
53 Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27
A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30 Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31 Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:
hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.32
b. Oral-anal
There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called "the Gay Bowel" is described in the medical literature.33 "Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse."34 Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with "gay bowel," the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.35 "Rimming" is the street name given to oralanal contact. It is because of this practice that intestinal parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of American gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, "rimming" provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections.

Men who have sex with men account for the lion's share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact. These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include Hepatitis A,36 Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica,37 Epstein-Barr virus,38 Neisseria meningitides,39 Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Pediculosis, scabies and Campylobacter.40
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified a 1991 outbreak of Hepatitis A in New York City, in which 78 percent of male respondents identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.41While Hepatitis A can be transmitted by routes other than sexual, a preponderance of Hepatitis A is found in gay men in multiple states.42 Salmonella is rarely associated with sexual activity except among gay men who have oral-anal and oral-genital contact following anal intercourse.43 The most unsettling new discovery is the reported sexual transmission of typhoid. This waterborne disease, well known in the tropics, only infects 400 people each year in the United States, usually as a result of ingestion of contaminated food or water while abroad. But sexual transmission was diagnosed in Ohio in a series of male sex partners of one male who had traveled to Puerto Rico.44 In America, Human Herpes Virus 8 (called Herpes Type 8 or HHV-8) is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners. Researchers have long noted that men who contracted AIDS through homosexual behavior frequently developed a previously rare form of cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma. Men who contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex or intravenous drug use rarely display this cancer. Recent studies confirm that Kaposi's sarcoma results from infection with HHV-8. The New England Journal of Medicine described one cohort in San Francisco where 38 percent of the men who admitted any homosexual contact within the previous five years tested positive for this virus while none of the exclusively heterosexual men tested positive. The study predicted that half of the men with both HIV and HHV-8 would develop the cancer within 10 years.45 The medical literature is currently unclear as to the precise types of sexual behavior that transmit HHV-8, but there is a suspicion that it may be transmitted via saliva.46 c. Human Waste
Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.47 This practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of analgenital contact.
d. Fisting
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
54 "Fisting" refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse.

Tears can occur, along with incompetence of the anal sphincter. The result can include infections, inflammation and, consequently, enhanced susceptibility to future STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosexuals in one survey admitted to having participated in this practice.48
e. Sadism
The sexualization of pain and cruelty is described as sadism, named for the 18th Century novelist, the Marquis de Sade. His novel Justine describes repeated rapes and non-consensual whippings.49 Not all persons who practice sadism engage in the same activities. But a recent advertisement for a sadistic "conference" included a warning that participants might see "intentional infliction of pain [and] cutting of the skin with bleeding . . . ." Scheduled workshops included "Vaginal Fisting" (with a demonstration), "Sacred Sexuality and Cutting" with "a demonstration of a cutting with a live subject," "Rough Rope," and a "Body Harness" workshop that was to involve "demonstrating and coaching the tying of erotic body harnesses that involve the genitals, male and female."50 A similar event entitled the "Vicious Valentine" occurred near Chicago on Feb. 15-17, 2002.51 The medical consequences of such activities range from mild to fatal, depending upon the nature of the injuries inflicted.52 As many as 37 percent of homosexuals have practiced some form of sadism.53
f. Conclusion
The consequences of homosexual activity have significantly altered the delivery of medical care to the population atlarge. With the increased incidence of STD organisms in unexpected places, simple sore throat is no longer so simple.

Doctors must now ask probing questions of their patients or risk making a misdiagnosis. The evaluation of a sore throat must now include questions about oral and anal sex. A case of hemorrhoids is no longer just a surgical problem. We must now inquire as to sexual practice and consider that anal cancer, rectal gonorrhea, or rectal chlamydia may be secreted in what deceptively appears to be "just hemorrhoids."54 Moreover, data shows that rectal and throat gonorrhea, for example, are without symptoms in 75 percent of cases.55 The impact of the health consequences of gay sex is not confined to homosexual practitioners. Even though nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS,56 AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer.57 The inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking.58
Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.

2. Female Homosexual Behavior
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63
Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports."67 Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71 In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as "crabs," genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73
C. Mental Health

1. Psychiatric Illness
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
55 Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77
Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80
The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders.

2. Reckless Sexual Behavior
Depression and drug abuse can lead to reckless sexual behavior, even among those who are most likely to understand the deadly risks. In an article that was part of a series on "AIDS at 20," the New York Times reported the risks that many gay men take. One night when a gay HIV prevention educator named Seth Watkins got depressed, he met an attractive stranger, had anal intercourse without a condom and became HIV positive. In spite of his job training, the HIV educator nevertheless employed the psychological defense of "denial" in explaining his own sexual behavior:
"[L]ike an increasing number of gay men in San Francisco and elsewhere, Mr. Watkins sometimes still puts himself and possibly other people at risk. 'I don't like to think about it because I don't want to give anyone H.I.V.,' Mr.

Watkins said."82
Another gay man named Vince, who had never before had anal intercourse without a condom, went to a sex club on the spur of the moment when he got depressed, and had unprotected sex:
"I was definitely in a period of depression . . . . And there was just something about that particular circumstance and that particular person. I don't know how to describe it. It just appealed to me; it made it seem like it was all right."83 Some of the men interviewed by the New York Times are deliberately reckless. One fatalistic gay man with HIV makes no apology for putting other men at risk:
"The prospect of going through the rest of your life having to cover yourself up every time you want to get intimate with someone is an awful one. . . . Now I've got H.I.V. and I don't have to worry about getting it," he said. "There is a part of me that's relieved. I was tired of always having to be careful, of this constant diligence that has to be paid to intimacy when intimacy should be spontaneous."84
After admitting to almost never using condoms he adds:
"There is no such thing as safe sex. . . . If people want to use condoms, they can. I didn't go out and purposely get H.I.V. Accidents happen."85
Other reports show similar disregard for the safety of self and others. A1998 study in Seattle found that 10 percent of HIV-positive men admitted they engaged in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000.86 According to a study of men who attend gay "circuit" parties,87 the danger at such events is even greater. Ten percent of the men surveyed expected to become HIV-positive in their lifetime. Researchers discovered that 17 percent of the circuit party attendees surveyed were already HIV positive.88 Two thirds of those attending circuit parties had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use condoms.89
In addition, drug use at circuit parties is ubiquitous. Although only 57 percent admit going to circuit parties to use drugs, 95 percent of the survey participants said they used psychoactive drugs at the most recent event they attended.90 There was a direct correlation between the number of drugs used during a circuit party weekend and the likelihood of unprotected anal sex.91
The researchers concluded that in view of their findings, "the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern."92 Good mental health would dictate foregoing circuit parties and other risky sex. But neither education nor adequate access to health care is a deterrent to such reckless behavior. "Research at the University of New South Wales found well-educated professional men in early middle age those who experienced the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s are most Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
56 likely not to use a condom."93
D. Shortened Life Span
The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.94 The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.95 The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the Canadian study. First, HIV/AIDS is underreported by as much as 15-20 percent, so it is likely that not all AIDSrelated deaths were accounted for in the study.96 Second, there are additional major causes of death related to gay sex. For example, suicide rates among a San Francisco cohort were 3.4 times higher than the general U.S. male population in 1987.97 Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer, and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men disproportionately.98 E. "Monogamy"
Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most extensive survey of sex in America found that "a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact."99 The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.100
In contrast, long-term sexual fidelity is rare among GLB couples, particularly among gay males. Even during the coupling period, many gay men do not expect monogamy. A lesbian critic of gay males notes that:
"After a period of optimism about the longrange potential of gay men's one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing 'monogamy without fidelity'-the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too."101
Gay men's sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of "monogamy without fidelity." Astudy of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a "primary partner." Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners "had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . ."102 For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.

II. CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF PROMISCUITY
"Don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up." ~ African proverb The societal implications of the unrestrained sexual activity described above are devastating. The ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilizations around the globe.105
Throughout history, many people have climbed over the fence, engaging in premarital, extramarital and homosexual sex. Still, the fence stands; the limits are visible to all. Climbing over the fence, metaphorically, has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the breachers themselves. No civilization can retain its vitality for multiple generations after removing the fence.106
But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.107 If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia? The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights.108 And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.109 Lesbian social critic Camille Paglia observes, "history shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence."110 Gay author Gabriel Rotello writes of the changes in homosexual behavior in the last century:
"Most accounts of male-on-male sex from the early decades of this century [20th] cite oral sex, and less often masturbation, as the predominant forms of activity, with the acknowledged homosexual fellating or masturbating his partner. Comparatively fewer accounts refer to anal sex. My own informal survey of older gay men who were sexually active prior to World War II gives credence to the idea that anal sex, especially anal sex with multiple partners, was considerably less common than it later became."111
Not only has the practice of anal sex increased, condom use has declined 20 percent and multi-partner sex has doubled in the last seven years,112 despite billions of dollars spent on HIV prevention campaigns. "In many cases, the prevention slogans that galvanized gay men in the early years of the epidemic now fall on deaf ears."113 As should be expected, the health-care costs resulting from gay promiscuity are substantial.114 Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
57 Social approval of gay sex leads to an increase in such behavior. As early as 1993, Newsweek reported that the growing media presence and social acceptance of homosexual behavior was leading to teenager experimentation to the extent that it was "becoming chic."115 A more recent report stated that "the way gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses."116 In addition, one of the goals of GLB advocates' quest for domestic partner benefits from employers is to motivate more gays and lesbians "to come out of the closet."117 If, as suggested above, being "out" results in a greater incidence of promiscuity, employer decisions to provide domestic partner benefits may have a negative impact on employee health. Indeed, giving gays and lesbians the social approval they desire may ultimately lead to an early death for employees who otherwise might have restrained their sexual behavior.

Research designed to prove that gays and lesbians are "born that way" has come up empty there is no scientific evidence that being gay or lesbian is genetically determined.118 Even researcher Dean Hamer, who once hoped he had identified a "gay gene," admits "there is a lot more than just genes going on."119

CONCLUSION
It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.

APPENDIX A
Definitional Impediments to Research
Unfortunately, endeavors to assess the actual practices and the health consequences of male and female homosexual behavior are hampered by imprecise definitions. For many, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is a political identity that does not necessarily correspond to sexual behavior. And investigators find that sexual behavior fluctuates over time:
"[P]eople often change their sexual behavior during their lifetimes, making it impossible to state that a particular set of behaviors defines a person as gay. A man who has sex with men today, for example, might not have done so 10 years ago."120
Defining the terms becomes even more difficult when people who identify as gay or lesbian enter heterosexual relationships. Joanne Loulan, a well-known lesbian, has talked openly about her two-year relationship with a man: "'I come from this background that sex is an activity, it's not an identity,' says Loulan. 'It was funny for a while, but then it turned out to be something more connected, more deep. Something more important. And that's when my life started really going topsy turvy.'" While critics complain that "You can't be a lesbian and be having sex with men," Loulan sees no contradiction in the fact that she "adamantly refuses to call herself a bisexual, to give up the lesbian identity."121
Several high-profile lesbian media stars that have abandoned lesbianism further illustrate the difficulty in defining homosexuality. An article about the now defunct couple, Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres, said, "Although the pair never publicly discussed the reason for their breakup, it has been heavily rumored that Heche decided to go back to heterosexuality."122 Heche married a man on Sept. 1, 2001.123 As recently as June 2000, pop-music star Sinead O'Connor said, "I'm a lesbian . . . although I haven't been very open about that, and throughout most of my life I've gone out with blokes because I haven't necessarily been terribly comfortable about being a lesbian. But I actually am a lesbian."124 Then, shocking the gay world that applauded her "coming out," O'Connor's sexual identity fluctuated again when she withdrew from participating in a lesbian music festival because of her marriage to British Press Association reporter Nick Sommerlad.125 Although women get most of the press coverage of fluctuating between same-sex and heterosexual relationships, men can experience similar fluidity. Gay author John Stoltenberg has lived with a lesbian, Andrea Dworkin, since 1974.126 And a 2000 survey in Australia found that 19 percent of gay men reported having sex with a woman in the six months prior to the survey.127 This fluctuation in sexual "orientation" inhibits the creation of a fixed definition of homosexuality. As one group of researchers stated the problem:
"Does a man who has homosexual sex in prison count as a homosexual? Does a man who left his wife of twenty years for a gay lover count as a homosexual or heterosexual? Do you count the number of years he spent with his wife as compared to his lover? Does the married woman who had sex with her college roommate a decade ago count? Do you assume that one homosexual experience defines someone as gay for all time?"128 Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, the one thing that is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population. The most reliable studies indicate that 1-3 percent of people and probably less than 2 percent consider themselves to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, or currently practice same-sex sex.129 https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/the-health-risks-of-gay-sex.html Homosexual Journalist Admits, 'Gay Lifestyle is a Sewer' Issue Date: November/December 2008
The pro-sodomite media would have us believe that all homosexuals are in a wonderful, long-term, committed Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
58 relationship with only one other person. They are portrayed as just another kind of "family" perfectly capable of raising children and making a valuable contribution to society.

But British broadcast journalist Simon Fanschawe disagrees. Himself a homosexual, he produced a documentary for the BBC called The Trouble With Gay Men. After reviewing some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in a bath house, he asks, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we are sort of saying is normal?" His conclusion:
"...the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations." This is because that "promiscuity has become the norm...." If promiscuity is the norm, why do we only hear of the "committed relationships" that "deserve" to be recognized with formal and legal "marriage?" It is because the sodomite lobby gained control of Hollywood and the news media and we are denied the truth. Studies have shown that even the small number of homosexuals who claim to be in a "committed relationship" have their own definition of monogamy.

Homosexual researchers Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen found that "the cheating ratio of 'married` gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,` for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples." In fact, another study concluded that 43 percent of male homosexuals have more than 500 partners in their lifetime.

A smaller percentage had over 1000. Thus, the wonderful same-sex "family" image we are fed is largely a myth.

Average life span only 40 years!
Fanshawe`s film included statistics showing the deadly results of the homosexual lifestyle.

In London alone, one of nine homosexual men were HIV positive and new cases had doubled in the last five years. In the same period, syphilis had increased 616 percent.

Other studies found that the average life span of male homosexuals is about 40 years, with only 2 percent living to age 65.

One reason God calls homosexuality an abomination is the promiscuity aspect. This has been proven in the pattern of the spread of AIDS. When the disease first showed up in the homosexual community, the fear was that it would become a world-wide pandemic in the heterosexual community. 25 years later, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that "there will be no generalized epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa." So, what is so special about Africa? First, they have 33 million infected with HIV and second: promiscuity is at the root of it. Some witch doctors even teach that the cure for aids is to have sex with as many women as possible. Scientists working there are beginning to admit that pushing condoms is not working and they need to change their strategy. It is interesting that the two things they find that work are both biblical: male circumcision and monogamy.

What can we do as soul winners? We need to get out the rest of the facts. The "normal" homosexual is not in a committed, monogamous relationship as Hollywood and the TV sitcoms would have us believe. Even one of their own recognizes that it is a "sewer" of a lifestyle.

One of the chapters in the new book, Hot Topics, deals with the deception of homosexuality and how it`s really about gaining access to the children. Chick tracts Doom Town and Sin City also teach God`s view on the subject.

People who do not know the Bible are being brainwashed by the media lies. If we share this book and plant enough of these tracts, we can open their eyes to the truth.
https://www.chick.com/battle-cry/article?id=Homosexual-Journalist-Admits-Gay-Lifestyle-is-a-Sewer WHY REVEAL THE DARK SIDE OF THE GAY MOVEMENT?, by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

No one wants to be the bearer of bad news about a group that has suffered discrimination.

But because homosexuality is rooted in a gender wound, the dark side of gay life keeps stubbornly emerging, in spite of public-relations efforts to submerge it.

Statistics tell us that gay sex is often tied to substance abuse, promiscuity and unsafe sex practices. A significant minority of gay men also participate in sadomasochism, public sex in bathhouses and group sex.

Many people, both gay and straight, become curious about this "dark side of life" and briefly dabble in it. Soon, however-- those who are psychologically and spiritually healthier-- come to reject such things as degrading, destructive of their integrity as human beings, and "not who I am." But why, then, do some gay men—in fact, so many of the gay population— continue to engage in soul-destroying obsessions and behaviors? This phenomenon is not restricted to a fringe of the gay subculture. Even Andrew Sullivan—who identifies himself as a Catholic (despite his obvious rejection of foundational Catholic beliefs), and is a well-known conservative in the gay movement--defends what he calls the "the beauty and mystery and spirituality of sex, even anonymous sex" in his book Love Undetectable.

And in a speech to a gathering of college students, the Rev. Mel White was also reported by Pastoral Care Ministries Newsletter (Spring 2000) to have said that he does not "struggle" with pornography, but uses it. The reverend is the leader of Soulforce, a gay group that pickets Protestant denominational meetings to push for the blessing of same-sex unions.

Writers Gabriel Rotello (author of Sexual Ecology) and Michelangelo Signorile (Life Outside) are both conservatives in the sense that they have spoken out strongly about the dangers of irresponsible sex and sexually transmitted diseases, and have taken rancorous criticism from the gay community's more radical faction.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
59 Yet when Signorile speaks of the "rauchy, impersonal atmosphere" of sex in public parks and bathrooms, he is careful to note that he, himself, would never judge it:
"There's nothing morally wrong with this--and I say that as someone who has certainly had my share of hot public sex, beginning when I was a teenager and well into my adulthood." (1) Similarly, Gabriel Rotello says he has been maligned for his role as a so-called "moralistic crusader" against unsafe sex. Yet he explains:
"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity, provided it doesn't lead to massive epidemics of fatal diseases. I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun." (2) Taking a Closer Look
When NARTH's literature describes the dark side of the gay movement, this is not done for the purpose of gay bashing. Our primary purpose is to identify and understand a psychological pattern.

Mainstream psychologists are usually too conflicted (or simply uninformed) to acknowledge any pattern or assign any significance to this sexual radicalism.

Indeed, much of the language of psychologists has been purged of evaluative judgment that could explain the meaning and significance of a particular behavior. A 1975 Dictionary of Psychology states that "fetishism, homosexuality, exhibitionism, sadism and masochism are the most common types of perversion." Now, 25 years later, the word "perversion" is never used for any of those conditions; they are known as "deviations" or "variations." Emotional Deficits Become Sexual Fixations
But because homosexuality is deficit-based, the dark side of gay life--characterized by sexual addictions and fixations- -keeps stubbornly emerging, in spite of public-relations efforts to submerge it.

Culture Facts, an online publication of Family Research Council, recently reported on a street fair that illustrates this paradox. The fair was sponsored in part by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)--two very prominent groups committed to mainstreaming and normalizing homosexuality.

Yet that event featured public whippings, body piercing, public sex, sado-masochism, and public nakedness by parade marchers. Fair booths sold bumper stickers that said, "God masturbates," and "I Worship Satan," and merchants peddled studded dog collars and leather whips (not for their dogs). On the sidelines of the public fair, a man dressed as a Catholic nun was strapped to a cross with his buttocks exposed, and onlookers were invited to whip him for a two-dollar donation.

How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition?
And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?
Endnotes
(1) "Nostalgia Trip," by Michaelangelo Signorile, The Gay and Lesbian Review, Spring 1998, Volume Five, No. 2, p. 27. (2) "This is Sexual Ecology," by Gabriel Rotello, The Gay and Lesbian Review, Spring 1998, Volume Five, No. 2, p. 24. https://www.josephnicolosi.com/collection/why-reveal-the-dark-side AN OPEN SECRET: THE TRUTH ABOUT GAY MALE COUPLES, by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

Today, with homosexuality no longer a disadvantage in many Western cultures, the promiscuous nature of gay men's relationships is being more openly acknowledged.

In 1948, Kinsey observed that long-term homosexual relationships were notably few. Now, more than fifty years later, long-term gay male relationships may be more common, but the fact remains that they are typically not monogamous.

In one recent study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIVstatus (1).

This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Outside affairs, the researchers found, were not damaging to the relationship’s endurance, but were in fact essential to it. “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel,” says the authors (p. 256).

The gay community has long walked a thin public-relations line, presenting their relationships as equivalent to those of heterosexual married couples. But many gay activists portray a very different cultural ethic. Michelangelo Signorile describes the campaign “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely--to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” (1974, p 3).

Research Findings On Promiscuity
In 1968, Hoffman stated: “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America” (p. 45). A much-cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), published by the Kinsey Institute, and often called Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
60 the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever attempted, gathered its data before the AIDS crisis had begun. This study showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners.

Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners. The authors concede: “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated” (p.82). “Almost half of the white homosexual males…said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers,” (p. 85).

A few years later, Pollak (1985) described sexual behavior among gays as “an average several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity” (p.44). He said:

The homosexual pick-up system is the product of a search for efficiency and economy in attaining the maximization of “yield” (in numbers of partners and orgasms) and the minimization of “cost” (waste of time and risk of one’s advances being rejected). Certain places are known for a particular clientele and immediate consummation: such as “leather” bars, which often have a back room specially reserved for the purpose, saunas and public parks. (p. 44) William Aaron’s autobiographical book Straight draws similar conclusions:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Constantly the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement. [p. 208] He concludes:

Gay life is most typical and works best when sexual contacts are impersonal and even anonymous. As a group the homosexuals I have known seem far more preoccupied with sex than heterosexuals are, and far more likely to think of a good sex life as many partners under many exciting circumstances. [p.209] Emphasis On Sexuality
One writer – who, it should be mentioned, strongly sympathizes with the gay community about the stresses of social discrimination – observes conditions among gay men as follows:

It must be remembered that in the gay world the only real criterion of value is physical attractiveness…The young homosexual will find that his homosexual brothers usually only care for him as a sexual object. Although they may invite him out to dinner and give him a place to stay, when they have satisfied their sexual interest in him, they will likely forget about his existence and his own personal needs….Since the sole criterion of value in the homosexual world is physical attractiveness, being young and handsome in gay life is like being a millionaire in a community where wealth is the only criterion of value. [Hoffman 1968, pp. 58, 153, 155] Aging is also viewed particularly negatively in the homosexual culture, with high value placed on youth (Bell and Weinberg 1978).

In his psychoanalytic study of ten couples, six of whom were homosexual, Gershman (1981) observed that in homosexual coupling, “sexuality is of greater importance and plays a larger role.” Gershman found that the majority of male couples he studied had agreed upon an open relationship, as long as the affairs were conducted discreetly. He found that while the male couples studied were capable of high compatibility in many other respects, there was great difficulty in maintaining sexual interest.

With the exception of the pioneering work of Warren (1974), for many years, little attention was given to long term gay relationships. When McWhirter and Mattison published The Male Couple in 1984, their study was undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves were a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist, the other a psychologist. After much searching they were able to locate 156 male couples in relationships that had lasted from 1 to 37 years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity.

The results of their study show that of those 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.

Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than 5 years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. They reported:

The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.

Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last “until death do us part,” whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive. (p.3) McWhirter and Mattison admit that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem, and dependency. However, they believe that
“the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256) Other researchers have also seen sexual freedom as beneficial to gay relationships (Harry 1978, Peplau, 1982).

Yet in reality, there remains a contradictory longing for greater stability. In a study of thirty couples, Hooker (1965, p. 46) found that all but three couples expressed “an intense longing for relationships with stability, sexual continuity, intimacy, love and affection”- but only one couple in her study had been able to maintain a monogamous relationship for ten years. Hooker concluded, “For many homosexuals, one-night stands or short-term relationships are typical” (p.49).

The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is relatively common, it is no Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
61 more than discreetly tolerated.

Faced with the fact that gay male relationships are in fact promiscuous, gay writers have no choice but to promote the message that monogamy is not necessary.

Redefining “Fidelity”
McWhirter and Mattison believe that gays must redefine “fidelity” to mean not sexual faithfulness, but simply “emotional dependability.”
How can a relationship without sexual fidelity remain emotionally faithful? Fidelity as such is only an abstraction, divorced from the body. The agreement to have outside affairs precludes any possibility of genuine trust and intimacy.

A Clinical Understanding Of Gay Infidelity
Gay relationships are typically burdened with each man’s same-sex defensive detachment, and their need to compensate for that same-sex detachment. Therefore the relationship will often take the form of an unrealistic idealization of the other person as an “image.” In pursuing the other man as a representation the masculine introject that he himself lacks, many gay men either develop a self-denigrating dependency on the partner, or they become disillusioned because they discover “he has the same deficit I have.” As he did in relationship with his father, the homosexual man fails to fully and accurately perceive the other man. His same-sex ambivalence and defensive detachment mitigate against trust and intimacy. When he becomes disillusioned, he will often continually set his hopes on the possibility of yet another, more satisfying partner.

In seeking out and sexualizing relationships with other males, the homosexual is attempting to integrate a lost part of himself. Because this attraction emerges out of a deficit, he is not completely free to love. He often perceives other men in terms of what they can do to fulfill his deficit. Thus, a giving of the self may seem like more of a diminishment than a self-enhancement.

A man who is depressed may gain a temporary sense of mastery through anonymous sex because of its excitement, intensity, even danger – followed by sexual release and an immediate reduction of tension. Later he is likely to feel disgusted, remorseful, and out of control. He feels regretful, regains control and feels all right again. But when there is nothing to “feed” that healthy state, it will be a matter of time until he gets depressed, feels powerless and out of touch with himself, and seeks anonymous sex again as a short-term solution to getting back in touch and feeling in control.

Often a homosexual client will report seeking anonymous sex following an incident in which he felt ignored or slighted by another male. Feeling shamed and victimized, he acts out sexually as a way of reasserting himself and getting something back he feels was taken from him. Once again, he feels guilty and has to repent or make amends. Many gay men become addicted not just to the sexual release, but to the entire compulsive, life-dominating cycle-- if not through overt behavior, then through preoccupation and fantasy.

In these repetitive, compulsive, and impersonal sexual behaviors, we see a focused engagement with the object--with a desire for an intense relationship, but at the same time, a resistance toward genuine intimacy. Hoffman (1968) describes the “sex fetishization” found in gay life (p. 168), and Gottlieb (1977) points out the strong element of sexual fantasy that has become institutionalized in gay culture. Masters and Johnson (1979) also found that those fantasies tend to be more violent than those of heterosexuals.

Homosexual attraction is often characterized by a localized response to body parts or aspects of the person, but when interest in these traits diminishes through familiarity, there follows a loss of interest in the person as a whole. In comparison, “straight” men are generally, in my clinical experience, not as trait-fixated. While some men may envision their ideal woman as tall, blond, blue-eyed, and large-breasted, we hardly see a distinct disinterest in women without these specific traits.

The Problem Of Sexual Sameness
In homosexual sex, the “body parts don’t fit.” Therefore sex must be “individually enjoyed rather than mutually experienced” (p. 214) by a technique of “my turn – your turn” (p.214) and “you do me, I do you.” (Masters and Johnson, 1979). Where orgasmic episodes are experienced separately, considerable discussion is required for their negotiation.

Sexual sameness also diminishes long term interest and creates the need for greater variety, including other partners (Masters and Johnson 1979).

McWhirter and Mattison (1984) corroborate this viewpoint, saying, “The equality and similarities found in male couples are formidable obstacles to continuing high sexual vitality in their lasting relationships” (p. 134).

These similarities between two men provide one possible explanation for gay promiscuity. Women are “wired” for nurturance and child-rearing, and a stable primary relationship is necessary for their protection and the protection of their children. Thus a woman introduces a restraining influence into the relationship that two men will never experience.

Indeed, gay-activist social commentator Andrew Sullivan has found that as a gay man matures, his relationships will likely split between those men he is friends with, and those he has sex with, but that the two groups will not likely overlap. Gay men, he says, “have a need for extramarital outlets.” (1995, p. 95).

This “new order” approach advocated by gay activists is part of a general cynicism toward mainstream values and the possibility of monogamy. Churchill, for example, is a gay advocate a and strong critic of Judeo-Christian influence in society. His work in the social-science literature reveals a deep hopelessness about the possibility of enduring relationships, either homosexual or heterosexual:

It may be reasonably supposed that there never was nor ever will be any person who can fulfill all of the spiritual and physical needs of another person. Hence, husbands and wives alike must spend a good deal of time and effort in artful Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
62 deception and flattery… They must sustain the illusion upon which their marriage is based and upon which their sexual relationship is justified. [1967, p. 301]
Churchill describes the “dreary” picture brought to mind by the term family man:

It is difficult…to imagine any person who is engaged with the world at large as a family man or a homebody. It is almost impossibility for any man or woman who is laden with the cares and preoccupations particular to family life to be very deeply concerned with others. (p. 305)
Of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, he says:

Far from being the source of each and every good, it is one source of a great many social and moral evils. If all the homely virtues are learned in the bosom of the family….it should not be forgotten that many of the more contemptible vices are also learned in the bosom of the family: complacency, jealousy, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, envy, selfishness, rivalry, avarice, prejudice, vanity, and greed. (p. 304) Conclusion
Although homosexuals do lack cultural supports, such as the freedom in every culture to marry a same-sex partner, I believe this is not the cause of gay promiscuity. I believe the central cause of gay promiscuity is to be found in the inherent sexual and emotional incompatability between two males. Men were designed for women, and when some factor—psychological, biological, or a combination of both—interferes with that wired-in design, the freedom to marry a partner of the same sex cannot change the fact that “something’s not working.” For additional data, see "Romantic Relationship Difficulties," (pages 70-71), "Interpersonal Relationships," (page 80- 81) and "Promiscuity as a New Social Norm," (pages 81- 83), in the Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 1, 2009, published by NARTH, www.narth.com.

Footnote
(1) Neilands, Torsten B.; Chakravarty, Deepalika; Darbes, Lynae A.; Beougher, Sean C.; and Hoff, Colleen C. (2010), “Development and Validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale,” Journal of Sex Research, 47: 1, 24 — 37, April 2009.

References:

Aaron, W. (1972). Straight. New York: Bantam Books.

Bell, A., and Weinberg, M. (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Churchill, W. (1967). Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-cultural and Cross-species Investigation. New York: Hawthorne Books.

Gershman, H. (1981). Homosexual Marriages. American Journal of Psychoanalysis 41:149-159.

Gottlieb, D. (1977). The Gay Tapes. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Stein and Day Scarborough House.

Harry, J. (1978). Marriages between gay males. In the Social Organization of Gay Males, ed. J. Harry and V. Devall.

New York: Praeger.

Hoffman, M. (1968). The Gay World: Male Homosexuality and the Social Creation of Evil. New York: Basic Books.

Hooker, E. (1965). An empirical study of some relations between sexual patterns and gender identity in male homosexuals. In Sex Research, New Developments, ed. J. Money, pp.24-52. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B. and Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B.

Saunders.

Kurtz, Stanley, “Beyond Gay Marriage,” The Weekly Standard, August 4 - August 11, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 45.

Masters, W., and Johnson, V. (1979). Homosexuality in Perspective. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

McWhirter, D., and Mattison, A. (1984). The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Peplau, L. (1982). Research on homosexual couples: An overview. Journal of Homosexuality 8:3-7.

Pollak, M. (1985). Male homosexuality. In Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P.

Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Signorile, Michaelangelo, “Bridal Wave.” In Out, December 1994.

Sullivan, Andrew, Virtually Norman: An Argument about Homosexuality, New York: Knopf, 1995.

Warren, C. (1974). Identity and Community in the Gay World. New York: Wiley & Sons. https://www.josephnicolosi.com/collection/2015/5/28/an-open-secret-the-truth-about-gay-male-couples December 12, 1997, OPED, Gay Culture, Redefined, By LARRY KRAMER The facts: enough gay men are once again having enough unsafe sex that the rates of H.I.V. infection, gonorrhea and syphilis are returning to frightening heights.

The facts: a small and vocal gay group that calls itself Sex Panic has taken it upon itself to demand "sexual freedom," which its members define as allowing gay men to have sex when and where and how they want to. In other words, this group is an advocate of unsafe sex, if this is what is wanted, and of public sex, if this is what is wanted. It advocates unconditional, unlimited promiscuity.

The facts: public sex means sex in parks, in public restrooms, in bathhouses, in the back rooms of bars and discos, at weekend parties, on beaches -- anywhere men can gather.

The facts: this is the very same debate that occurred in 1981 when the first signs of the AIDS plague were appearing.

Few wished to pay attention to the dangers then, preferring to demand the right to have sex in exactly the same ways that Sex Panic is demanding be legitimized again.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
63 The facts: once again, this has become a battle over civil rights rather than an issue of public health. (A question: why is public sex a civil right? I do not want to see straight people copulating in the park or in public restrooms. And I do not believe that heterosexuals view such acts as theirs by right.) The facts: shamefully, not one AIDS organization or national gay and lesbian group has been willing to speak out and condemn or even criticize what Sex Panic is saying. There are only a few gay men willing to take on the group -- and we have been vilified by the pro-promiscuity forces for our views.

The truth is, most gay men live calm, orderly lives, often as couples, and they are embarrassed by what Sex Panic espouses. They are ashamed this issue has surfaced again. Many feel that to speak up against Sex Panic only validates its existence, and that if they keep their mouths shut the group will go away. And, as with smoking, they feel that enough information about safe sex is out there -- if people choose to ignore it, that's their business.

Criticism from lesbians, the other half of our movement, is desperately needed as well. Promiscuous gay men must hear the message, "Enough already! Haven't you learned anything from the last 17 years?" Yet lesbian activists, who alongside gay men have fought against AIDS, crawl into shells rather than confront the idiocy of what Sex Panic is demanding. Why are they refusing to speak out, particularly when so many of them have confided that they agree with me?
After all, AIDS has usurped the entire gay movement's agenda, at great cost to lesbian issues. Just when it looked as if there was some breathing space to pay more attention to these issues, AIDS resurges. The message Sex Panic and its supporters are giving to women is tantamount to: we'll come back to your issues some other time.

I cannot understand why lesbians are not furious with their gay male friends.

Without a strong, vocal opposition, Sex Panic is on its way to convincing much of America that all gay men are back to pre-AIDS self-destructive behavior that will wind up costing the taxpayer a lot of extra money. Indeed, what Sex Panic is demanding could easily allow our enemies, as well as many of our straight friends, to deny all gay people what rights we've won or are still fighting for.

Those who do speak out in protest are automatically accused of assimilationist views: we want to be like straights; we want marriage and monogamy and white picket fenced-in homes.

It is particularly moronic that Sex Panic considers these desires so sweepingly offensive. But even gay people who don't want to be like straights, don't want to be assimilated and don't even want to marry or have a relationship still want to live their lives as social equals and responsible citizens.

Fortunately, more and more gay people are beginning to realize that it's time to redefine what it means to be gay.

Allowing sex-centrism to remain the sole definition of homosexuality is now coming to be seen as the greatest act of self-destruction. There is a growing understanding that we created a culture that in effect murdered us, and that if we are to remain alive it's time to redefine homosexuality as something far greater than what we do with our genitals.

But this redefinition will require nothing less than remaking our culture.

Sex Panic was formed in fury to defeat this call to change. But how will gay men have any future if they continue to die from playing by old rules instead of living by new ones? https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/121297sci-aids.html

LESBIAN/GAY/BISEXUAL/TRANSGENDER/QUEER PEOPLE- (LGBTQ):
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/biden-to-transgender-americans-your-president-has-your-back-111031877945 Kamala Harris dances and takes selfies with people at Pride in CA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfSVGsh-yn4
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/05/31/a-proclamation-on-lesbian-gay-bisexualtransgender-queer-and-intersex-pride-month-2024/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/05/31/a-proclamation-on-lesbian-gaybisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-pride-month-2024/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-passes-bill-prohibit-discrimination-lgbtq-americans-days/story?id=76115226 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/04/memorandum-advancing-the-humanrights-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-persons-around-the-world/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/04/memorandum-advancing-thehuman-rights-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-persons-around-the-world/ https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Interagency-Report-on-the-Implementation-of-the-PresidentialMemorandum-on-Advancing-the-Human-Rights-of-Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-and-Intersex-PersonsAround-the-World-2022.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/17/fact-sheet-the-biden-harrisadministration-is-advancing-lgbtqi-human-rights-at-home-and-across-the-globe/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/17/fact-sheet-the-biden-harrisadministration-is-advancing-lgbtqi-human-rights-at-home-and-across-the-globe/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-the-equality-act-will-providelong-overdue-civil-rights-protections-for-millions-of-americans/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-the-equality-actwill-provide-long-overdue-civil-rights-protections-for-millions-of-americans/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/22/fact-sheet-national-strategy-on-genderItem 1 December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
64 equity-and-equality/
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/22/fact-sheet-national-strategyon-gender-equity-and-equality/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/15/executive-order-on-advancing-equalityfor-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-individuals/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/15/executive-order-on-advancingequality-for-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-individuals/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/01/fact-sheet-the-biden-harrisadministration-champions-lgbtq-equality-and-marks-pride-month/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/01/fact-sheet-the-biden-harrisadministration-champions-lgbtq-equality-and-marks-pride-month/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administrationadvances-equality-and-visibility-for-transgender-americans/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/31/fact-sheet-biden-harrisadministration-advances-equality-and-visibility-for-transgender-americans/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/01/a-proclamation-on-lesbian-gay-bisexualtransgender-and-queer-pride-month-2021/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/01/a-proclamation-on-lesbian-gaybisexual-transgender-and-queer-pride-month-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/21/readout-of-white-house-roundtablewith-lgbtq-advocates-on-the-equality-act-and-achieving-full-equality-for-lgbtq-americans/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/21/readout-of-white-houseroundtable-with-lgbtq-advocates-on-the-equality-act-and-achieving-full-equality-for-lgbtq-americans/ https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/readout-white-house-roundtable-with-lgbtq-advocates-the-equality-actand-achieving-full https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/01/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-releases-firstever-federal-evidence-agenda-on-lgbtqi-equity/ https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/01/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administrationreleases-first-ever-federal-evidence-agenda-on-lgbtqi-equity/ https://www.hiv.gov/blog/fact-sheet-president-biden-sign-historic-executive-order-advancing-lgbtqi-equality-duringpride https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/05/62/52/03/1000_F_562520361_R4JEP2c2dMYdpVYM3vBEyySi4e6EE3U4.jpg

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
65 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: White women benefit most from affirmative action. So why do they oppose it?

EXTERNAL
White women benefit most from affirmative action. So why do they oppose it?, Jessica Guynn, published 7:10 pm, ET June 29, 2023; updated 1:50 pm ET June 30, 2023

People often associate affirmative action with efforts to end discrimination for people of color. But scholars say the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies are white women, from college campuses to the American workplace.

White women today are more educated and make up a bigger slice of the workforce as a result of decades of affirmative action policies, scholars say. White women have also made inroads into corporate leadership that people of color and women of color have not.

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina to build diversity on their campuses. Legal observers say that decision will have huge consequences for higher education and could have significant ripple effects for corporate diversity programs.

What is affirmative action?
Affirmative action refers to efforts to curb discrimination in education, employment and government contracting.

Affirmative action was first used in 1935 in the Wagner Act, a federal law that gave workers the right to start and join unions. John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term to mean advancing racial equality.

The term was originally meant to convey that the government should act affirmatively to end race and gender discrimination. But critics have equated affirmative action with racial quotas and preferences that they say give unfair advantages to people of color and discriminate against white people.

How have white women benefited from affirmative action? Discussions about affirmative action tend to focus on race, but statistics show that it also has been an equalizer for white women in education and in the workplace.

A Labor Department report in 1995 found that since the 1960s, affirmative action had helped 5 million members of minority groups and 6 million women move up in the workplace. “When we talk about institutions like higher education, we see that women in general are on par with men, but we have severe underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx folks in colleges and universities and even greater disparities for women of color,” Texas A&M sociologist and lawyer Wendy Leo Moore told USA TODAY. “You can make the same analysis when we look at employment. Those are the kinds of things that indicate that on a structural level that white women have benefited.”
What does affirmative action data show?
In the past six decades, women have leapfrogged men in earning four-year degrees while Black and Latino students are still underrepresented in college admissions and graduation rates, especially in four-year colleges.

A similar trend has been seen in the workplace, according to a USA TODAY analysis of named executives at the nation's 100 largest companies.

From 2020 to 2022, white women expanded their share of senior leadership jobs at twice the rate of women of color, though women remained outnumbered 4 to 1. Despite marginal gains among men of color, white men still hold about two-thirds of the top jobs even though they account for just one-third of U.S. workers.

Why do most white women oppose affirmative action?
If white women benefit from affirmative action, why do they oppose it? Half of Americans do not approve of colleges and universities considering race in admissions, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. A majority of white adults disapprove of it, too. About 70% of non-Hispanic white women somewhat or strongly oppose affirmative action, according to a 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

White women have also challenged affirmative action policies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against Abigail Fisher, a white student who said the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
66 Moore says the opposition is the result of long-running anti-affirmative action campaigns from conservative groups that attack race-based affirmative action but not gender-based affirmative action. “None of that same pressure is operating on the basis of gender,” she said.

The result: significant strides for white women, but not for women of color. “Because of the way we see women of color as their race before their gender, women of color haven’t benefited from it,” Moore said.

Supreme Court ruling and diversity:Supreme Court just reversed affirmative action. What that means for workplace diversity.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It?, By Chloe Angyal, Jan 21, 2016, 12:22 PM EST, Updated Jun 23, 2016
On Thursday, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld affirmative action in higher education admissions, protecting a landmark victory of the Civil Rights movement against yet another assault.

The face of Fisher v. Texas, Abigail Fisher, is a young, educated and white woman who sought to undo affirmative action in the erroneous belief that the system limited her chances because of her race.

But if the court had dismantled affirmative action across the nation, Fisher, and many other white women like her, would have been sorely disappointed. The fact is that white women are disproportionately likely to benefit from affirmative action policies. You’d never know that from listening to Fisher -- or her demographic.

Data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study -- an annual large-scale academic survey that aims to track political attitudes -- show that 66 percent of young white people between 17 and 34 describe themselves as “somewhat opposed” or “strongly opposed” to affirmative action policies in employment and admissions. Among young white women, 67 percent are against affirmative action. Among young women of color -- the study polls black, Hispanic and Asian American women -- only 29 percent oppose it either strongly or somewhat.

Affirmative action, when it was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, originally required entities that receive federal funding to take tangible steps “to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, Lyndon Johnson added sex to that list.

And yet, just as most people think of Title IX as being about athletics funding (there’s a lot more to it than that), the general perception of affirmative action is that it’s “just” about race.

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But -- and this is a big but -- those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs -- and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.It's likely most of them don't understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.“For most polling,” Rhodes said, “understanding of policies is pretty limited. Citizens have a hard time connecting their experience to policies unless they're regularly receiving pretty clear signaling from government about the benefits of those policies.” Younger citizens tend to be the least knowledgeable, Rhodes noted, simply by virtue of having less experience and less time to collect information. Guided only by the popular perception of affirmative action that it only (or mostly) benefits people of color, it’s possible that young white women see no benefit from the diversity it brings to classrooms and workplaces and view it as an obstacle to their own chances of gaining access to those spaces.But even if young white women are aware of how affirmative action could likely benefit them -- and how likely it is that they, in fact, have already benefitted from it -- it’s possible these millennials view efforts to remedy the effects of racism as unnecessary, just as they view efforts to remedy the effects of sexism.Rhodes and his co-author at Al Jazeera, Sean McElwee, write that the data suggest young white Americans, “rather than seeing racism as a persistent problem still in need of remedy... are inclined to believe America is a colorblind society and that little Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
67 remains to be done to remedy past racial injustices.”Similarly, the success of affirmative action for white women might have contributed to their sense that they, and people like them, no longer need formalized programs to ensure that they’re fairly considered for admission and employment. Sure, affirmative action helps fix sex discrimination, but that’s not really a Thing anymore, right?All this depends, however, on young white women knowing that affirmative action benefits them, and disproportionately so. Rhodes noted that the question used to collect the data is one that primes race over sex: “Affirmative action programs give preference to racial minorities in employment and admissions in order to correct for past discrimination. Do you support or oppose affirmative action?” Had the question mentioned sex instead of race, responses from young white women might have been different.Faced with the data we have, however, we’re left to assume that their answers are informed, at best, by a mistaken belief that racism is over and policies against it are a relic of a bygone era and, at worst, by racial prejudiceThese findings contradict the conventional wisdom that young people are considerably more racially progressive than their parents and grandparents, Rhodes and McElwee note. And, Rhodes suggested, the lack of movement in white attitudes about affirmative action is likely connected to the increasing necessity of a college degree in the contemporary workforce and the growing competitiveness of the workforce “that make the chances of having a stable middle class more precarious than it used to be.""I do think that shapes how they understand the admissions process,” Rhodes said.But so, too, does persistent racism, it seems, as well as a lack of understanding about what affirmative action policies actually do.White women benefit enormously from affirmative action. By opposing it, they’re advocating for making life harder not only for racial and ethnic minorities -- but also for themselves.This story has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. Texas. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-white-women_n_56a0ef6ae4b0d8cc1098d3a5 Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
68 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Why Public Funding Of Faith-Based Services Is Unconstitutional by attorney Jeff Kassel (May 1999)

EXTERNAL
You help the poor citizens of the U.S.A. by guarantee of permanent full time jobs at federal minimum wage and (non-homeless shelters) low cost quality non-HUD subsidized housing just like illegal alien foreign national immigrants and refugees are given immediately upon entry into the United States of America who are a third of the population total. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are a fraud based social service which input people into HMIS.
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/hmis/
President Bush signs executive orders to advance his "faith-based initiative" at a meeting of religious and charitable leaders in 2002 in Philadelphia. Hoping to involve churches and religious organizations more deeply in government efforts to address social ills, Bush signed executive orders aimed at giving those groups a leg up in the competition for federal money. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

Why Public Funding Of Faith-Based Services Is Unconstitutional by attorney Jeff Kassel (May 1999) This was presented on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation before the Special Committee on Faith-Based Approaches to Crime Prevention and Justice of the Wisconsin Legislature on March 11, 1999.

There are many state and federal laws that permit religiously affiliated organizations to provide a variety of publicly funded social services. Each of those laws contains a crucial limitation on the use of governmental funds: they may not be used by the organization for religious purposes.1 The consistency of that prohibition in statute after statute is no accident. It reflects a long-established and widely accepted understanding that the federal and state constitutions forbid the payment of public funds to religious organizations to be used for religious purposes.

The current effort to include “faith-based” organizations as providers of governmentally funded crime prevention or other social service programs represents a radical departure from this understanding and practice. The use of faith-based providers is being advocated precisely because of the religious nature of the services to be provided at state expense. It is for precisely this reason that state-funded faith-based social services are unconstitutional.

The Establishment Clause
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” a provision that is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Virtually every observer of the U.S. Supreme Court would agree–indeed, the Court itself has observed–that the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is hardly a model of clarity.

There is, however, a Supreme Court case that directly addresses the use of religious organizations to Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
69 provide publicly funded social services, and that case, Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), provides the framework for the analysis of publicly funded, faith-based crime prevention services.

The issue in Bowen was the constitutionality of the federal Adolescent Family Life Act, which provided grants to public or nonprofit private organizations for services relating to adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. The Act was challenged because religious organizations were among the organizations eligible to receive federal funds to provide those services. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act was not invalid “on its face” simply because religiously affiliated organizations might participate.

However, the Court recognized that there may well be unconstitutional applications of the Act. It would be unconstitutional, for example, if the federal funds went to a grantee that is a “pervasively sectarian” religious institution or if the aid were used to fund “specifically religious activities.” In such cases, the Court held, the religious organization could not participate in the program. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the funds were in fact being used in an unconstitutional manner.

The Justice who provided the fifth vote in Bowen upholding the facial validity of the Act–and who often represents the “swing” vote on Establishment Clause issues–Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, wrote a concurring opinion in which she explained why the “as applied” challenge to the Act may well succeed as the facts of the case became more fully developed. She emphasized that “any use of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment Clause.” While the government may use religious organizations to advance secular goals, she said, it must do so “without thereby permitting religious indoctrination. . . .” Id. at 623 (O’Connor, J., concurring). It may be relatively easy for a religiously affiliated organization to run a publicly funded soup kitchen without engaging in religious indoctrination, she noted.

It is far more likely that the organization would cross the constitutional line by engaging in religious activities when it provided counseling services.

The use of “faith-based” organizations to provide faith-based corrections and crime prevention services crosses that line. It is apparent that many of these organizations are pervasively sectarian and that their express purpose is to promote their religious beliefs while providing services. For example, the Committee has received literature regarding the Restorative Justice Ministries Network of Texas. That organization’s list of “goals and objectives” states as first objective: “Maintain the standard of Jesus Christ in communications and representations of all we do. Relay the message that Jesus Christ is the only solution in changing a person[‘]s nature, pointing offenders, ex-of[f]enders, criminal justice professionals, victims, and all their families toward the solutions that can only be found in Him.” The Establishment Clause prohibits state funding to organizations such as this whose services are religious in nature and that will use state funds to further their mission of religious indoctrination and conversion. “Neutrality” does not mean constitutionality
Proponents of governmental funding for religious-based social services contend that the constitutionality of such programs should be judged under a “neutrality” standard. For example, Professor Carl Esbeck argues that the constitution permits religious organizations to provide government ally funded social services that include inherently religious activities as an integral part of the services, as long as both secular and religious organizations are eligible to participate in the program. See Carl H. Esbeck, A Constitutional Case for Governmental Cooperation with Faith-Based Social Service Providers, 46 Emory L.J. 1 (1997).

Neutrality has never been accepted by the courts as a sufficient guarantor of constitutionality. In Bowen, for example, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the proposition that a program that neutrally benefits sectarian and nonsectarian organizations cannot have the unconstitutional effect of advancing religion:
“Of course, even when the challenged statute appears to be neutral on its face, we have always been careful to ensure that direct governmental aid to religiously affiliated institutions does not have the Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
70 primary effect of advancing religion. One way in which direct government aid might have that effect is if the aid flows to institutions that are “pervasively sectarian.’ . . . The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct government funding even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution’s “religious mission.'” 487 U.S. at 609-10.

Professor Esbeck acknowledges that the neutrality principle has not been adopted by the Supreme Court– that at most four of the Court’s nine justices (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) may be prepared to permit funding of religious activities by religious organizations under that principle and that four justices (Stevens, Souter, Gins burg and Breyer) are firmly opposed. See Esbeck, 46 Emory L.J. at 30-33. Indeed, the remaining justice, Justice O’Connor, has made it clear that she does not believe that the neutrality principle is the appropriate constitutional standard. In the 1995 Rosenberger case, in which the Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit a state university from using student activity fees to pay the printing bill of a religious student organization, Justice O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion to express her view that the Court’s decision “neither trumpets the supremacy of the neutrality principle nor signals the demise of the funding prohibition in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2528 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

A constitutional defense of government funding for faith-based social services based on the neutrality principle relies on a constitutional theory that has never been accepted by the United States Supreme Court and that is unlikely to be embraced by a majority of the current Court. Nor could a lower court uphold such a program under a neutrality theory. Lower courts are bound by existing Supreme Court cases and are not free to adopt the neutrality principle even if they believe it to be preferable to the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence and even if they believe that the Supreme Court eventually will adopt the principle. If this Committee is inclined to give serious consideration to state funding for faith-based crime prevention services, it should do so with the understanding that the constitutional theory advanced to justify those programs has never been accepted by the Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin Constitution
Article I, section 18, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides for separation of church and state in language that is much more specific than the federal constitution. It provides that no “money [shall] be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries;” that no person “shall . . . be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent;” and that no “preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. . . .”
Although it has often been observed that the language of the state constitution is more restrictive than the federal Establishment Clause, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless has generally followed federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence when interpreting the state constitutional language. In State ex rel.

Warren v. Nusbaum, 55 Wis. 2d 316, 198 N.W.2d 650 (1972), for example, the Court struck down a law providing state funds to pay tuition at the Marquette dental school. The Court held that the aid violated the Establishment Clause because there was a possibility that the funds would be used for the university’s operating costs other than those of the dental school, and that any program that violated the federal constitution necessarily violated the state constitution as well. The Court added that a “proper contract” which truly restricted the use of state funds to secular dental education would not violate the state constitution because the dental school was a wholly secular unit of the university and the university as a whole would derive only an incidental benefit from such a contract. Id. at 333-35.

Most recently, in a case not readily squared with the Nusbaum decision, the Court held that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program violated neither the Establishment Clause nor Article I, section 18, because it Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
71 found the program to be both “neutral” with respect to religious and nonreligious schools and because parents, not the schools, determined which schools received state aid. Jackson v. Benson, 218 Wis.2d 835, 578 N.W.2d 602, cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 466 (1998). However, even if the Wisconsin Supreme Court were correct in its analysis of the program–the U.S. Supreme Court almost certainly will review the constitutionality of a school voucher program some day–the faith-based crime prevention programs offered to the Committee do not fit the voucher model.

There is another state constitutional provision potentially implicated by faith-based crime prevention programs. Article I, section 19, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that “No religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the state. . . .” That provision likely would be violated by a program such as the “Inner Change program” described in Legislative Council Staff Brief 98-

11. According to the Staff Brief, Prison Fellow ship Ministries operates a unit of a Texas prison staffed by both Ministries-paid staff and volunteers and by state -employed corrections officers. Be fore they are allowed to work in the unit, the state employees are questioned to determine whether they would be comfortable “working with a biblically based, Christ-centered program.” If corrections officers hold an “office of public trust” protected by Article I, section 19, that constitutional provision would prohibit Wisconsin from operating a program like that in Texas. (The courts have held that a village police chief holds an “office of public trust,” see Law Enforcement Standards Board v. Village of Lyndon Station, 98 Wis.2d 229, 295 N.W.2d 818 (Ct. App. 1980), aff’d, 101 Wis.2d 472, 305 N.W.2d 89 (1981), but there are no cases discussing whether a police or corrections officer does.) But even if Article I, section 19, does not literally prohibit the State of Wisconsin from using state employees in this manner, the notion that the State of Wisconsin would question state employees about their religious beliefs and restrict job assignments to those employees who are comfortable “working with a biblically based, Christcentered program” is abhorrent to this State’s traditions and values.

Conclusion
Faith-based organizations are free to of fer religiously based social services to those who wish to avail themselves of those services. Under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin, however, those services may not be funded by public monies. 1Examples of statutes that prohibit the use of public funds for religious purposes in state and federally funded programs include: Sec. 120.125(3) (a)3., Wis. Stats. (prohibiting religious instruction and religious practices in before- and after-school day care programs administered by third-party providers under contract with school districts); Sec. 120.13(26), Wis. Stats. (prohibiting providers of private educational services under contracts with school districts from providing “religious or sectarian teachings or instruction”); 42 U.S.C. § 9858k (prohibiting the use of funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program “for any sectarian purpose or activity, including sectarian worship or instruction”); 42 U.S.C. § 12584(a)(4) (prohibiting the use of funds under the National and Community Service Act for religious purposes); 20 U.S.C. §§ 1062(b), 1069c(l), 1132c (prohibiting the use of federal Higher Education Assistance funds for sectarian instruction or religious worship).

Attorney Jeffrey Kassel was lead counsel for the ACLU in litigation challenging Wisconsin’s religious school voucher program. He received his undergraduate degree from Bucknell University, his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1985.

He is a partner in the Madison law firm LaFollette & Sinykin, specializing in constitutional law and appellate litigation. He previously clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb and has taught at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
72 He represented the Foundation on both of its successful challenges of Wisconsin’s Good Friday state holiday.
https://ffrf.org/fttoday/may-1999/articles-may-1999/why-public-funding-of-faith-based-services-isunconstitutional/

White House Faith-Based & Community Initiative
Faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) have a long tradition of helping Americans in need and together represent an integral part of our nation’s social service network. Yet, all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs.

Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field.

The Initiative in Action
President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives and Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in eleven Federal agencies to lead a determined attack on need by strengthening and expanding the role of FBCOs in providing social services. The Federal government has worked to accomplish this mission through an array of regulatory and policy reforms, legislative efforts, and public outreach to FBCOs. Additionally, by making information about Federal grants more accessible and the application process less burdensome, the Initiative has empowered FBCOs to compete more effectively for funds. The ultimate beneficiaries are America’s poor, who are best served when the Federal government’s partners are the providers most capable of meeting their needs.

Focus of the Initiative
Identifying and eliminating barriers that impede the full participation of FBCOs in the Federal grants process.

Ensuring that Federally-funded social services administered by State and local governments are consistent with equal treatment provisions.

Encouraging greater corporate and philanthropic support for FBCOs' social service programs through public education and outreach activities.

Pursuing legislative efforts to extend charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faithbased organizations, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.

Increasing Accessibility
The underlying premise of the President’s Initiative is that a more open and competitive Federal grantmaking process will increase the delivery of effective social services to those whose needs are greatest.

Thus, Federal agencies have successfully undertaken a variety of measures to do this, including:

Making information more accessible
Providing training and technical assistance
Broadening program eligibility
Changing regulations
Streamlining grant applications
Focusing on the unique needs of grassroots organizations; and Eliminating preferential treatment for existing and former grantees White House Conferences
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
73 The White House is hosting a series of regional conferences and targeted workshops to continue its support for the work of effective faith-based and community social service programs. The events will provide participants with information about the government grants process and available funding opportunities, an overview of the legal responsibilities that come with the receipt of Federal funds and various grant writing tutorials. The conferences will also provide an opportunity to inform State and local officials about equal treatment regulations and other central elements of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

The conferences are supported by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration, and the Agency for International Development.

Written Documents
The White House Office has published several written resources to assist grassroots groups in navigating the Federal grants system. These documents include Federal Funds for Organizations That Help Those In Need (a catalog of Federal grant opportunities), Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government (a guide to the legal responsibilities associated with the receipt of Federal funds), and Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith-Based Organizations (a booklet which outlines the protection of religious hiring rights). https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/president-initiative.html Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
74 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: The Republic Has Fallen: The Deep State’s Plot to Take Over America Has Succeeded, By John W. Whitehead, May 23, 2017

EXTERNAL
E-government corruption refers to the misuse or abuse of digital government systems and technologies for personal or political gain. While e-government is typically designed to increase transparency, efficiency, and accountability in public administration, it can also create new opportunities for corruption if not properly managed.

E-government (electronic government) involves the use of digital tools—like websites, databases, and online services—to deliver government services, interact with citizens, and manage internal operations.

How Corruption Can Occur in E-Government
Despite its potential to reduce corruption, e-government systems can be exploited in several ways:

Manipulation of digital records: Officials may alter or delete data to cover up misconduct.

Biased algorithmic decisions: Automated systems may be programmed or influenced to favor certain individuals or groups.

Lack of oversight: Poorly monitored systems can allow unauthorized access or fraudulent transactions.

Digital exclusion: Vulnerable populations may be left out of digital services, creating new forms of inequality and exploitation
E-Gov Act of 2002
The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899, 44 U.S.C. § 101, H.R. 2458/S. 803), is a United States statute enacted on December 17, 2002, with an effective date for most provisions of April 17, 2003. Its stated purpose is to improve the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes by establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and Budget, and by establishing a framework of measures that require using Internet-based information technology to improve citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.
https://digital.gov/resources/e-gov-act-of-2002/
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/egov-act-section-207.html The Republic Has Fallen: The Deep State’s Plot to
Take Over America Has Succeeded,
By John W. Whitehead, May 23, 2017
“You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country…why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell-bent to protect? You want to defend the United States of America, Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
75 then defend it with the tools it supplies you with—its Constitution. You ask for a mandate, General, from a ballot box.

You don’t steal it after midnight, when the country has its back turned.”—Seven Days in May (1964) No doubt about it.

The coup d’etat has been successful.

The Deep State—a.k.a. the police state a.k.a. the military industrial complex—has taken over.

The American system of representative government has been overthrown by a profit-driven, militaristic corporate state bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad.

When in doubt, follow the money trail.

It always points the way.

Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought—lock, stock and barrel—and made to dance to the tune of the Deep State.

Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired five-star Army general -turned-president who warned against the disastrous rise of misplaced power by the military industrial complex was complicit in contributing to the build-up of the military’s role in dictating national and international policy.

Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC.

Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump has paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the Deep State to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic.

Just recently, for instance, Trump—boasting about the “purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment because nobody makes it like the United States—agreed to sell Saudi Arabia more than $110 billion in military weapons and “tanks and helicopters for border security, ships for coastal security, intelligence-gathering aircraft, a missile-defense radar system, and cybersecurity tools.”
Meanwhile, Trump—purportedly in an effort to balance the budget in 10 years—wants to slash government funding for programs for the poor, ranging from health care and food stamps to student loans and disability payments.

The military doesn’t have to worry about tightening its belt, however. No, the military’s budget—with its trillion dollar wars, its $125 billion in administrative waste, and its contractor-driven price gouging that hits the American taxpayer where it hurts the most—will continue to grow, thanks to Trump.

This is how you keep the Deep State in power.

The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, the military will get more militaristic, America’s endless wars will get more endless, and the prospect of peace will grow ever dimmer.

As for the terrorists, they will keep on being played for pawns as long as Saudi Arabia remains their breeding ground and America remains the source of their weapons, training and know-how (15 of the 19 terrorists—including Osama bin Laden—who carried out the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia).

Follow the money. It always points the way.

As Bertram Gross noted in Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, “evil now wears a friendlier face than ever before in American history.”
Writing in 1980, Gross predicted a future in which he saw:
…a new despotism creeping slowly across America. Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
76 enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and, more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion...

This stealthy, creeping, silent coup that Gross prophesied is the same danger that writer Rod Serling warned against in the 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May, which put the military in charge of a coup that would institute martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

On the big screen, the military coup is foiled and the republic is saved in a matter of hours. In the real world, however, the plot thickens and spreads out over the past half century.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

The question is no longer whether the U.S. government will be preyed upon and taken over by the military industrial complex. That’s a done deal.

The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished.

It will not be revived or restored without a true revolution of values and a people’s rebellion the likes of which we may not see for a very long time.

America is a profitable business interest for a very select few, and war—wars waged abroad against shadowy enemies and wars waged at home against the American people—has become the Deep State’s primary means of income.

If America has been at war more than we’ve been at peace over the past half century, it’s because the country is in the clutches of a greedy military empire with a gargantuan, profit-driven appetite for war. Indeed, the U.S. has been involved in an average of at least one significant military action per year, “ranging from significant fighting in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to lesser incursions in such far-flung countries as Kuwait, Bosnia, Pakistan, Libya, Grenada, Haiti and Panama… That total does not count more limited U.S. actions, such as drone strikes.” War is big business.

In order to maintain a profit margin when there are no more wars to be fought abroad, one would either have to find new enemies abroad or focus on fighting a war at home, against the American people, and that’s exactly what we’re dealing with today.
 Wars waged abroad to the tune of trillions of dollars since 9/11.  Military equipment sold to foreign enemies.
 Local police transformed into a standing army in the American homeland through millions of dollars’ worth of grants to local police agencies for military weapons, vehicles, training and assistance.  The public acclimated to the sights and sounds of martial law through urban training exercises wherein military troops rappel from Black Hawk helicopters in cities across the country, from Miami and Chicago to Minneapolis, to domestic military training drills timed and formulated to coincide with or portend actual crises.
 The citizenry taught to fear and distrust each other and to welcome the metal detectors and pat downs in their schools, bag searches in their train stations, tanks and military weaponry used by their small town police forces, surveillance cameras in their traffic lights, police strip searches on their public roads, unwarranted blood draws at drunk driving checkpoints, whole body scanners in their airports, and government agents monitoring their communications.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
77 Had the government tried to ram such a state of affairs down our throats suddenly, it might have had a rebellion on its hands.

Instead, the American people have been given the boiling frog treatment, immersed in water that slowly is heated up—degree by degree—so that they’ve fail to notice that they’re being trapped and cooked and killed. “We the people” are in hot water now.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.

From Clinton to Bush, then Obama and now Trump, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

The republic has fallen to fascism with a smile.

As Bertram Gross wrote in what may have been his most prescient warning:

In 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote a popular novel in which a racist, anti-Semitic, flag-waving, army-backed demagogue wins the 1936 presidential election and proceeds to establish an Americanized version of Nazi Germany. The title, It Can't Happen Here, was a tongue-in-cheek warning that it might. But the "it" Lewis referred to is unlikely to happen again any place... Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In any First World country of advanced capitalism, the new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal political structure, and geopolitical environment... In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic-as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic facade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.

I am worried by those who fail to remember-or have never learned -that Big Business-Big Government partnerships, backed up by other elements, were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese empire builders. I am worried by those who quibble about labels… I am upset with those who prefer to remain spectators until it may be too late… I am appalled by those who stiffly maintain that nothing can be done until things get worse or the system has been changed. I am afraid of inaction. I am afraid of those who will heed no warnings and who wait for some revelation, research, or technology to offer a perfect solution. I am afraid of those who do not see that some of the best in America has been the product of promises and that the promises of the past are not enough for the future. I am dismayed by those who will not hope, who will not commit themselves to something larger than themselves, of those who are afraid of true democracy or even its pursuit.

Elections will not save us.

Learn the treacherous lessons of 2008 and 2016: presidential elections have made a mockery of our constitutional system of government, suggesting that our votes can make a difference when, in fact, they merely serve to maintain the status quo.

Don’t delay.

Start now—in your own communities, in your schools, at your city council meetings, in newspaper editorials, at protests—by pushing back against laws that are unjust, police departments that overreach, politicians that don’t listen to their constituents, and a system of government that grows more tyrannical by the day.

If you wait until 2020 to rescue our republic from the clutches of the Deep State, it will be too late.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
78 WC: 1908
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_republic_has_fallen_the_deep _states_plot_to_take_over_america_has_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BXZeqxkQeg

The USA by its Non-American Population!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7iTrTP88JiY
Modern History Project "A little learning is a
dangerous thing"
News : Articles : Database : Links : Messages : About
Articles > Books > Onsite > FinalWarning > Chapter 5.2
Final Warning
: A History of the New World Order
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination
-- by: David Allen Rivera, 1994, source: darivera.com
MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only

5.2 The Council on Foreign Relations
The origin and goals of the elite U.S. policy organization  The Inquiry and the Round Table
 The CFR Begins Operation
 The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR)
 The Globalist Goals of the CFR

<< Prev : Table of Contents : Next >>
>> Click names in text for timelines and related articles The Inquiry and the Round Table
In the fall of 1917, a group called "The Inquiry" was assembled by Col. Edward M. House to negotiate solutions for the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles. They worked out of the American Geographical Society doing historical research, and writing position papers. The Inquiry was formed around the inner circle of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which was a group of American socialist-oriented intellectuals.

House, President Wilson's most trusted advisor, was an admirer of Marx. In 1912, he anonymously wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator (published by Fabian B. W. Huebsch), which was a novel that detailed the plans for the takeover of America, by establishing "socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx," and the creation of a one-world totalitarian government. This was to be done by electing an American President through "deception regarding his real opinions and intentions." The book also discussed the graduated income tax, and tax-free foundations. The novel became fact, and "Philip Dru" was actually House himself.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
79 In the spring of 1918, a group of people met at the Metropolitan Club in New York City to form the Council on Foreign Relations. The group was made up of "high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading, and finance companies, together with many lawyers ... concerned primarily with the effect that the war and the treaty of peace might have on post-war business." The honorary Chairman was Elihu Root, a Wall Street lawyer, former New York Senator, former Secretary of War under McKinley, former Secretary of State under Theodore Roosevelt, member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912), and the most recognized Republican of his time. From June, 1918 to April, 1919, they held a series of dinner meetings on a variety of international matters, but soon disbanded.

On May 30, 1919, Baron Edmond de Rothschild of France hosted a meeting at the Majestic Hotel in Paris between The Inquiry and the Round Table groups to discuss a merger. The Inquiry was dominated by J. P. Morgan's people and included members such as:
 George Louis Beer (an historian who later became the U.S. representative for the Round Table)
 Walter Lippmann
 Frank Aydelotte
 Whitney H. Shepardson
 Thomas W. Lamont
 Jerome D. Greene
 Col. Edward M. House
 Dr. James T. Shotwell
 Professor Archibald Coolidge
 Gen. Tasker H. Bliss (the U.S. Army Chief of Staff)
 Erwin D. Canham (of the Christian Science Monitor)
 Herbert Hoover (who, when he was elected to the Presidency in 1928, chose CFR member Henry L. Stimson to be his Secretary of State)
Round Table representatives included:
 Lord Alfred Milner
 Lord Robert Cecil
 Lord Eustace Percy
 Lionel Curtis
 Harold Temperley
They met again on June 5, 1919, and decided to have separate organizations, each cooperating with the other. On July 17, 1919, Edward M. House formed the Institute for International Affairs in New York City, and The Inquiry became the American branch of the Round Table. Their secret aims were:
"...to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one ... to work to maintain peace; to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance towards stability, law and order, and prosperity, along the lines somehow similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London..."

The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Institute for International Affairs, both supporters of Wilson, strongly supported the League of Nations. However, the Round Table wanted to weaken the League by eliminating the possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany, and isolate England from Europe so an Atlantic power could be established, consisting of England, the British Dominions, and the United States.

In 1921, when it became apparent that the United States wasn't going to join the League, the Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated on July 21st, consisting of members from both groups, and others who had participated in the 1919 Paris Peace Talks. The name change was made so that the American branch of the Round Table would appear to be a separate entity, and not connected to the organization in England.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) became the American headquarters for the Illuminati. Led by Edward M.

House who wrote the Charter, they were financed by:

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
80  Paul Warburg
 Jacob Schiff
 William Averell Harriman
 Frank Vanderlip
 Bernard Baruch
 Nelson Aldrich
 J.P. Morgan
 Otto Kahn
 Albert H. Wiggin
 Herbert H. Lehman
 John D. Rockefeller
The membership of the CFR was mainly made up from the 150 members of Edward M. House's task force which worked on the Peace Treaty. Many were associates of the J.P. Morgan Bank. The first Board consisted of the seven who were on the Merger Committee, plus nine others:

 Whitney H. Shepardson (Executive Secretary)
 George W. Wickersham (Chairman, Wall Street lawyer, Attorney General for President Taft)  Frank L. Polk (Wall Street banker, Under Secretary of State)  Paul Warburg
 William R. Sheperd (president of Columbia University)  Edwin F. Gay (Secretary-Treasurer)
 Stephen P. Duggan (director of the International Education Board)  John W. Davis (President, former Ambassador to Great Britain)  Elihu Root (Honorary President)
 Paul D. Cravath (Vice President, NY lawyer)
 Archibald Cary Coolidge (Harvard historian)
 Isaiah Bowman (director of the American Geographical Society)  Norman H. Davis (NY banker, former Under Secretary of State)  John H. Finley (associate editor at the New York Times)  David F. Houston (former Secretary of Treasury)
 Otto Kahn (NY banker).

Other CFR members included:
 J. P. Morgan
 John D. Rockefeller
 Edward M. House
 Christian Herter
 Jacob Schiff
 Averell Harriman
 Nelson Aldrich
 Bernard Baruch
 Owen D. Young
 Russell C. Leffingwell
 John Dulles
 Allen Dulles
 James T. Shotwell
 Prof. Charles Seymour
 Joseph Chamberlain
 Philip Jessup
 Philip Mosely
 Grayson Kirk
 Henry M. Wriston
 Arthur H. Dean
 Philip D. Reed
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
81  John J. McCloy
 Walter Lippmann (founder of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society). (page top)
The CFR Begins Operation
Whereas All Souls College at Oxford University was the base for Round Table operations in England, the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, established by Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller's General Education Board, was the center of activities for the American branch.

The CFR membership grew from 97 in 1921, to 210 in 1922. In 1927, they began to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, and later the Carnegie Endowment and Ford Foundation, in addition to the financial support they got from J.P. Morgan and the Wall Street banking interests. By 1936, their membership reached 250, and they already had a lot of influence on five American newspapers: The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and the Boston Evening Transcript. This gave them the ability to slant the news in a way which would reflect their views, and thus begin the process of molding America to suit their needs.

In 1937, the CFR came up with the idea for 'Committees on Foreign Relations,' which would be established in various major cities around the country, for the "serious discussion of international affairs by leading citizens in widely separated communities." Between 1938 and 1940, Francis P. Miller organized these mini-Councils with funding from the Carnegie Corporation, to better influence thinking across the country. John W. Davis said after World War II that these committees had "provided an avenue for extending the Council to every part of the country." These CFR subsidiaries were established in 38 cities: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Billings, Birmingham, Boise, Boston, Casper, Charlottesville, Chicago (the most prominent), Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Nashville, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (ME), Portland (OR), Providence, Rochester, St. Louis, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Tucson, Tulsa, Wichita, and Worcester.

The CFR has always claimed to be a private organization that doesn't formulate any government policy, in fact, the following disclaimer appears on their books:
"The Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit institution devoted to the study of the international aspects of American political, economic, and strategic problems. It takes no stand, expressed or implied, on American policy."

From the beginning, their goal was to infiltrate the government, and that was done. Actually, they were so successful, that today, the CFR practically controls, and dictates, both domestic and foreign policy.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had Henry Wallace (Secretary of Agriculture) and Lewis Douglas (Director of the Budget Bureau) work with a CFR study group on national self-sufficiency, out of which came the Export-Import Bank and the Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

On September 12, 1939, after the start of World War II, CFR members Hamilton Fish Armstrong (editor of the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs) and Walter H. Mallory (Executive Director), went to the State Department and met with Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith (CFR member), to offer the services of the Council by establishing a CFR study group concerning the war and a plan for peace, which would make recommendations to the State Department. They proposed to do research, and make informal recommendations in areas regarding national security and economics. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles (CFR member) liked the idea, and the "War and Peace Studies Project" was initiated with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, who gave grants totaling $300,000 over a 6 year period.

Under that umbrella, there were 5 study groups, each with 10-15 men and a full-time paid secretary. All together, between 1940 and 1945, there were 100 people involved, with 362 meetings, producing 682 documents, and meets regularly with State Department officials.

Officers:

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
82 Norman H. Davis (Chairman)
Walter H. Mallory (Secretary)
Peace Aims:

Hamilton Fish Armstrong
Territorial:

Isaiah Bowman (President of Johns Hopkins University, geography expert) Armaments:

Allen W. Dulles (international corporate lawyer)
Hanson W. Baldwin (military correspondent for New York Times) Political:

Whitney H. Shepardson (corporate executive who was House's secretary at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference)
Economic and Financial:

Alvin H. Hansen (professor of political economy at Harvard) Jacob Viner (professor of economics at University of Chicago) In December, 1941, at the urging of the CFR, the State Department created the 14-member "Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy", in which the CFR was represented by eight of its members (2 more became members later). The core of the group was:
 Cordell Hull
 Sumner Welles
 Norman H. Davis
 Myron C. Taylor (corporate executive)
 Isaiah Bowman
 Leo Pasvolsky (economist)
All were CFR members, with the exception of Hull, and were known as the 'Informal Political Agenda Group' which Roosevelt called his "post-war advisers." They controlled the Committee, and were assisted by a research staff financed and controlled by the CFR. In order to formulate a closer liaison between the CFR and the Advisory Committee, the Research Secretaries from the "War and Peace Studies Project" were brought into the State Department as consultants to the corresponding subcommittee of the Advisory Committee. The Committee had their last general meeting in May, 1942, and all work from then on occurred at the subcommittee level.

As World War II came to an end, CFR study groups planned the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, the establishment of the United Nations, the initiation of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank (the U.N.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). In December, 1943, the CFR began to outline their proposal for the United Nations, which was presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Historian Ruth B. Russell wrote in her 1958 book, A History of the United Nations Charter: The Role of the United States, 1940-1945, that "the substance of the provisions finally written into the (U.N.) Charter in many cases reflected conclusions reached at much earlier stages by the United States Government." In 1945, the CFR moved into their present headquarters, which was largely financed by Rockefeller; and the study groups disbanded, with the men in those groups taking their place in the forefront of national affairs. For instance, Allen Dulles, former President of the CFR, was appointed director of the CFR; and John Foster Dulles, became Eisenhower's Secretary of State. Senator Barry Goldwater would later say: "From that day forward the Council on Foreign Relations had placed its members in policy-making positions with the federal government, not limited to the State Department."
In 1945, Sen. Arthur K. Vandenberg, a leading Republican, and a CFR member, traveled around the country to drum up support for the creation of the United Nations. He was also instrumental in getting the Republicancontrolled Congress to go along with Truman's CFR-controlled foreign policy. When the U.N. Conference met in San Francisco in 1945, there were 47 CFR members in the U.S. delegation, including:
 Alger Hiss (a State Department official and communist spy, who in 1950 was convicted of perjury after denying he had passed secret documents to the Russians, and was sentenced to five years in prison)
 Harry Dexter White (a communist agent)
Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
83  Owen Lattimore (who was called by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy")  Nelson Rockefeller
 John Foster Dulles
 Dean Acheson
 Harold Stassen
 Ralph Bunche
 John J. McCloy
 Adlai Stevenson
 Philip Jessup
 John Carter Vincent (identified as a "security risk")  Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (Secretary of State)
 Leo Pasvolsky
 Joseph E. Johnson
 Clark M. Eichelberger
 Thomas K. Finletter
(page top)
The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR)
In 1925, Lionel Curtis, established the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) in 12 countries in order to steer America towards Communism. This Round Table finger organization was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Ford Foundation.

The American branch of the IPR also received funding from:
 StandardOil
 Vacuum Oil
 Shell Oil
 International General Electric
 Bank of America
 National City Bank
 Chase National Bank
 International Business Machines (IBM)
 International Telephone and Telegraph (IT&T))
 Time Inc.
 J.P. Morgan
The IPR was led by Professor Owen Lattimore, head of Johns Hopkins University School of Diplomacy, who, during a 1951-52 investigation of the IPR, was identified as a Soviet operative. The Senate found the group to be "a vehicle toward Communist objectives." Men from the IPR (who were all communist or pro-communist) were placed in important teaching positions and dominated the Asian Affairs section of the State Department. After a four-year battle, their tax exempt status was revoked from 1955-1960.

Their publications were used by the armed forces, colleges, and close to 1,300 public school systems. They published a magazine called Amerasia, whose offices had been raided by the FBI which found 1,700 secret documents from various government agencies, including the Army and Navy, that were either stolen or given to them by traitors within the State Department. The Senate Internal Subcommittee concluded that the American policy decision which helped establish Communist control in China (by threatening to cut-off aid to Chiang Kai-shek unless he went communist), was made by IPR officials acting on behalf of the Soviet Union.

Besides Lattimore, they also named Lauchlin Currie (an Administrative Assistant to the President, who was identified as a Soviet agent by J. Edgar Hoover), Alger Hiss, Joseph Barnes, Philip Jessup, and Harry Dexter White as Communist sympathizers. While he was Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Harry Dexter White provided Russia with the means of printing currency. He became Director of the International Monetary Fund in 1946, but resigned in 1947, when Whittaker Chambers accused him of being pro-communist, which he denied. In November, 1948, after White's death, Whittaker produced five rolls of microfilmed documents, which included eight pages of U.S. military secrets which had been written by White.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
84 After World War II, the CFR was able to expand its study programs with grants of $1.5 million from the Ford Foundation, $500,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation, and $500,000 from the Carnegie Endowment.

Pro-communist Cyrus Eaton, Sr., a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, established the "Joint Conferences on Science and World Affairs", also known as the "Pugwash Conferences", in 1945 to gather intellectuals from across the world, and to exchange information on ways to push America towards disarmament. The group was financed by the CFR, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. In 1959, a disarmament proposal developed by the CFR, and discussed at the Conference, became the basis for Kennedy's disarmament policy in September, 1961.

In Study No. 7 Basic Aim of U.S. Foreign Policy, published by the CFR in November, 1959, they revealed their plans for the country:
"The U.S. must strive to build a new international order ... (which) must be responsive to world aspirations for peace ... (and) for social and economic change...including states labeling themselves as 'Socialist' ... (and to) gradually increase the authority of the U.N.."

They also advocated secret negotiations with Russia concerning disarmament, and increased foreign aid to China.

The foreign policy of the CFR seemed to mirror that of the U.S. Communist Party, only because a change to a socialistic form of government would bring them that much closer to a one-world government. (page top)
The Globalist Goals of the CFR
The CFR's "1980's Project" evolved from a Council Study Group on International Order, which had met from 1971-

73. They sought to duplicate the success they had achieved with the War and Peace Studies, and their concentration was to be on creating a new political and economic system that would have global emphasis. Miriam Camps, former Vice-Chairperson of the State Department's Policy Planning Council, recorded the group's discussion in a report called The Management of Independence, which called for "the kind of international system which we should be seeking to nudge things."
In the fall of 1973, the 1980's Project was initiated, and to accommodate it the CFR staff was expanded and additional funds raised, including $1.3 million in grants from the Ford, Lilly, Mellon and Rockefeller Foundations. The Coordinating Committee had 14 men, with a full-time staff; plus 12 groups, each with 20 members; in addition to other experts and advisors who acted as consultants to the project. Some of the reports produced: Reducing Global Inequities, Sharing Global Resources, and Enhancing Global Human Rights.

Stanley Hoffmann, a chief participant of the Project, wrote a book in 1978, called Primacy or World Order, which he said was an "illegitimate offspring" of the Project. Basically, it was a summary of the Project's work, and concluded that the best chance for foreign policy success, was to adopt a "world order policy." When Jimmy Carter was elected to the Presidency in 1976, some of the Project's strongest supporters, such as Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, Marshall Shulman, and Paul Warnke, went to the White House to serve in the new Administration. In 1979, the Project was discontinued for being too unrealistic, which meant it was too soon for that kind of talk.

The CFR headquarters and library is located in the five-story Howard Pratt mansion (a gift from Pratt's widow, who was an heir to the Standard Oil fortune) at 58 E. 68th Street, in New York City (on the corner of Park Ave. and 68th Street), on the opposite corner of the Soviet Embassy to the United Nations. They are considered a semi-secret organization whose 1966 Annual Report stated that members who do not adhere to its strict secrecy can be dropped from their membership. On the national level, the Business Advisory Council and the Pilgrim Society are groups which form the inner circle of the CFR, while on the international level it's the Bilderberg Group.

James P. Warburg (banker, economist, a member of FDR's brain trust, and son of Paul M. Warburg) of the CFR told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950:

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
85 "We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

The Chicago Tribune printed an editorial on December 9, 1950 which said:
"The members of the Council are persons of much more than average influence in the community.

They have used the prestige that their wealth, their social position, and their education have given them to lead their country towards bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them -- the dried blood of the last war and the fresh blood of the present one."

They have only been investigated once and that was in 1954 by the Special House Committee to Investigate TaxExempt Foundations (the Reece Committee), who said that the CFR was "in essence an agency of the United States Government." The Committee discovered that their directives were aimed "overwhelmingly at promoting the globalistic concept."
A July, 1958 Harper's magazine article said:
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly in increase business and ensure world peace.

What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for 'the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government'." On September 1, 1961, The Christian Science Monitor printed the following statement: "The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium [as in the Soviet Union] for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation."
On December 23, 1961, columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt (granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt) wrote in the Indianapolis News that CFR policies: "favor ... gradual surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations." Researcher Dan Smoot, a former FBI employee, said their goal was "to create a one-world Socialist system and make the United States an official part of it." (See "The Invisible Government" by Dan Smoot, 1962)
Rep. John R. Rarick of Louisiana said in 1971:
"The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system.

Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

The CFR is the Establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a oneworld dictatorship." Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
86 Phyllis Schlafly and Rear Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-60 who was a member of the CFR for 16 years, wrote in their 1975 book Kissinger on the Couch that the CFR's "...purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government is the only objective revealed to about 95 percent of 1,551 members (1975 figures). There are two other ulterior purposes that CFR influence is being used to promote; but it is improbable that they are known to more than 75 members, or that these purposes ever have even been identified in writing."

The book went on to say that the "most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common -- they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States." Ward's indictment of the group revealed their methods:
"Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."

The published accounts of CFR activities greatly understate their power and influence on national and foreign policy.

They have been called the "invisible government" or a front for the intellectual leaders who hope to control the world through the Fabian technique of "gradualism." Besides their involvement in the government, they hold key positions in all branches of the media, including the control or ownership of major newspapers, magazines, publishing companies, television, and radio stations.

The New York Times wrote:
"The Council's membership includes some of the most influential men in government, business, education and the press (and) for nearly half a century has made substantial contributions to the basic concepts of American foreign policy."

Newsweek called the Council's leadership the "foreign policy establishment of the U.S." Well-known political observer and writer Theodore White said: "The Council counts among its members probably more important names in American life than any other private group in the country." In 1971, J. Anthony Lukas wrote in the New York Times Magazine: "If you want to make foreign policy, there's no better fraternity to belong to than the Council." (page top)
<< Prev : Table of Contents : Next >>
Copyright © David A. Rivera
People - Organizations - Events
modernhistoryproject.org
https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.2 Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
87 David Yakobson
From: salgopropar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Which racial/ethnic group by United States of America constitutional law is entitled to restitution?

EXTERNAL
Let's look at factual evidence:

Subject: If one drop of black African blood makes a person or people black in the United States of America then why are Mexican nationals classified as white even though they have black African blood and origin? If one drop of black blood makes a person or people black in the United States of America irregardless of phenotype then why are Mexican nationals who have invaded the United States classified as white Americans when most Mexican nationals are illegal aliens who have black African blood and origins? They are given everything free in the United States of America by white Americans to take that nation over.

SISTEMA DE CASTAS (1500S-CA. 1829)
POSTED ONFEBRUARY 4, 2009, CONTRIBUTED BY: HERBERT G. RUFFIN II

Sistema de Castas (or Society of Castes) was a porous racial classification system in colonial New Spain (present-day Mexico). It was a “hierarchal ordering of racial groups according to their proportion of Spanish blood.” In this system, notable categories with significant meaning were español (Spaniard), castizo, morisco, mestizo, mulatto, indio (Indian), and negro (black). At the sistema de castas’ most extreme, there were more than forty classifications, with español being the most desirable and negro being the least desirable for sociopolitical purposes. Race, color, physical features, occupation, and wealth in this society mattered as Spanish officials attempted to control every aspect of a person’s life from employment to regulating dress codes and friendships.

Within the Castas, most persons of African descent were categorized between Spaniard and Negro, and identified as mulatto or racially intermingled hispanicized citizens of predominant African heritage. Socially, blacks were marginalized in Colonial Spanish affairs and were systematically victimized by an institutional discrimination designed to quell civil unrest through assimilating them as ladinos (Spanish speakers) and integrating them into a feudal caste society.

This pattern of customary and legal oppression led to many persons of African descent choosing to move to the frontier of New Spain (what is now Northern Mexico and the Southwest United States). From 1531 to 1800, Afro-Mexicans came to the Southwest from Mexican states on the Northern frontier like Vera Cruz and Coahuila and, after 1700, from states on the Pacific Coast such as Sinaloa and Michoacán de Ocampo. The initial recruits for frontier settlements like San Jose, California, were lighter-complexioned Spanish colonists, many of whom declined to participate because of “low pay, poor uniforms, antiquated weapons, insufficient housing, extended absences from families, and the overall unattractiveness of the Spanish military” and settlement. Bearing the brunt of what awaited on the frontier were mestizos/as and mullatos/as who served in the place of these lighter-complexioned colonists usually identified as españoles and criollos (i.e., persons of near-Spanish descent born in the Americas). As a result, Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
88 multiracial settlements from San Antonio, Texas to Los Angeles had large black populations ranging from 20 to 55 percent.

Moreover, because of the scarcity of Spanish-speaking women on the frontier, racial intermingling with Native American women and smaller numbers of African women was a widespread practice, which populated the newly conquered region with a new race of people identified as Latin American.

The fluid nature of the Castas did allow for a few persons of African descent to attain a socioeconomically elevated status more frequently on the Colonial Spanish frontier than in the United States at the end of the 18th century. Mulatto Pedro Huizar, for example, was able to become a Don (Spanish nobleman) at Mission San Jose and thus change his status to español in 1793. Huizar was born and raised at Aguascalientes, Mexico, acquiring many skills in the arts and building trades. Around 1778, he journeyed north, first to San Antonio de Bexar, and finally, el Pueblo de San Jose, where he worked as a sculptor, mission carpenter, and surveyor. As Huizar’s changed racial status shows, racial lines became so blurred through biological and occupational miscegenation that they became useless to Spanish census takers and other Iberian officials by 1800.

The Castas was officially dismantled by the 1830s, following the wars of independence raging throughout Latin America in the 1810s-1820s.
https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/sistema-de-castas-1500s-ca-1829/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjw0AhiC0x0
How The Federal Government Inflates Crime Statistics For Whites, ALEX PFEIFFERWHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, July 13, 2016, 9:52 PM ET
The federal government and most state governments don’t consider Hispanic/Latino as a racial category — instead, most crimes committed by Hispanics are counted under the category “white.” The Bureau of Prisons, for example, has relatively up-to-date statistics on the racial and ethnic composition of prisoners. As of May 28, 2016, 58.8 percent of federal prisoners are white, 37.7 percent are black, 2 percent are Native American, and 1.5 percent are Asian. Hispanics are not included in the race statistics, and the category only appears under ethnicity. The data there shows that 66.2 percent of federal prisoners are non-Hispanic and 33.8 percent are Hispanic. According to Census Bureau estimates from 2015, 87.6 percent of people of Hispanic origin consider themselves “white” instead of “black,” “Asian,” “American Indian,” or “Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.” This means an estimated 29.6 percent of federal prisoners are Hispanics who fall under the category of “white” when it comes to race. So while whites are identified as being 58.8 percent of federal prisoners, about half of those are Hispanic.

California, unlike the federal government, includes Hispanic as a race and the effect of this categorization on crime statistics is pretty clear. In the year 2014, 797 arrests of Hispanics were made for homicides, and 287 whites were arrested for the same crime. Census estimates of California in 2014 show 89.6 percent of Hispanics identify as white. So if California did not have a separate racial category for Hispanics, statistics would then show an estimated additional 693 murder arrests of white Californians. This would more than triple the amount of homicide arrests for whites, yet that is the standard which the federal government uses.

New York City also includes a racial category for Hispanics. In 2014, 45.8 percent of those arrested for rape were Hispanic, 43.2 percent were black, and 5.7 percent were white. But using the federal government standards, NYC crime would mean an estimated 39.8 percent of those arrested for rape charges would be white.

If one would look at most states Hispanic is not considered a racial category, and only some ask about Hispanic ethnicity. This makes it impossible in some states to know or even estimate the actual arrest figures by race. Due to this omission, Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics are not complete when it comes to Hispanic offenders. The FBI lists 9,014,635 total arrests, but only 4,813,531 of these have statistics on whether those arrested were Hispanic or non-Hispanic. The FBI, like the rest of the Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
89 federal government, does not count Hispanic as a race. https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/how-the-federal-government-inflates-crime-statistics-for-whites/

Texas’ ‘Most Wanted Fugitives’ Are All Listed As White — Based On Their Names, Mugshots And Gang Affiliations, None Of Them Are
Texas Department of Public Safety
CHRISTIAN DATOC, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, July 13, 2016, 11:50 AM ET

https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/texas-most-wanted-fugitives-are-all-listed-as-white-based-on-theirnames-mugshots-and-gang-affiliations-none-of-them-are/ Why are Hispanic/Latinos on track to overtake the United States of America and how will they share power with other immigrants from all over the world? 100% of these people came to the United States of America as illegal alien immigrants which is in violation of 'Favoring Illegal Immigrants Over Americans':

Biden Shredded By GOP Lawmaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKgVm8g7eTE

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:611%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8- section1325
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8- section1327
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1911-8-usc-1325-unlawful-entry-failuredepart-fleeing-immigration https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1912-8-usc-1326-reentry-afterdeportation-removal https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1914-8-usc-1328-importing-aliensimmoral-purposes https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1915-willful-failure-or-refusal-depart https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1916-high-speed-flight-immigrationcheckpoint https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1917-arrest-search-and-seizureimmigration-officers https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1918-arrest-illegal-aliens-state-and-localofficers

Why is Hispanic/Latino the new white racial/ethnic construct in the United States of America? The concept of Hispanic/Latino identity is multifaceted and continually evolving. Some key points:

Multiethnic Latinos: The U.S. Census reports that almost one in five Americans identify as Hispanic, with a 26 percent increase since 2010. Additionally, nearly four in ten U.S.-born Latinos are married to nonHispanic partners. This trend reflects the growing number of multiethnic Latinos, who embrace diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences.

White-Passing: Some Latinos are considered “white-passing” in the U.S., meaning they present as nonHispanic white individuals. This phenomenon has deep roots in the Latino community. For instance, Sabrina Stahlberger, who identifies as German and Mexican, shares her experiences of being perceived as white despite her dual heritage.

Social Construction: The term “Latino” emerged as an intermediary category between Black and white in the U.S. racial hierarchy. It reflects the complex interplay of enslavement, settler colonialism, and racial capitalism. Scholars debate whether Latina/os may eventually become “white” in a manner similar to Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
90 Eastern European immigrant groups in the early 20th century.

In summary, Hispanic/Latino identity is dynamic, influenced by cultural blending, family experiences, and societal perceptions. It challenges traditional racial constructs, highlighting the richness of diverse backgrounds
within this community. Why aren't Mexican Hispanic Nationals who are the second largest ethnic/racial group in the United States of America not being classified as black/negro/african-american under the one drop rule? 100% of them have immigrated to the United States of America as foreign illegal aliens and are being given the same rights, benefits, and privileges as white native born Americans.

Trevor Noah speaks on South Africa's RACE
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rtuYAwYgqkg

U.S. Hispanic Population Is Up 34% Since 1980, AP, Sept. 7, 1988 Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
September 7, 1988, Section A, Page 20Buy Reprints
View on timesmachine
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

The Hispanic population of the United States has increased by more than one-third since th 1980 census, growing nearly five times faster than the rest of the population, the Census Bureau reported today.

And more than half of all Hispanic Americans live in California or Texas, the bureau said.

It estimated that there were 19.4 million Americans of Hispanic background as of last March, representing

8.1 percent of the nation's population. The Hispanic population rose from 18.8 million a year earlier, an increase of 3 percent.

The new total is 34 percent more than the 14.5 million people who listed themselves as of Hispanic descent in the 1980 census. By comparison the nation's non-Hispanic population increased by about 7 percent in the same period.

About half the Hispanic increase was a result of immigration and half from the excess of births over deaths, the bureau said. Concentration in 2 States
While people of Hispanic ancestry make up a growing share of the nation's residents, they are extremely concentrated geographically, the bureau found. About one-third of Hispanic Americans, or 33.9 percent, Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
91 live in California, and 21.3 percent live in Texas, meaning those two states account for well over half of all Hispanic people in the United States.

While the study did not estimate the Hispanic population of every state, it said that nearly 90 percent live in just nine states. Those are California, 6.6 million; Texas, 4.1 million; New York, 2.1 million; Florida, 1.5 million; Illinois, 801,000; Arizona, 648,000; New Jersey, 646,000; New Mexico, 543,000, and Colorado, 368,000.

The bureau found that 51 percent of Hispanic-Americans have completed high school, as against 78 percent of the rest of the population. Ten percent have completed four years of college, as against 21 percent for non-Hispanic Americans.

People of Mexican heritage were the largest Hispanic group at 12.1 million. They were followed by Puerto Ricans living on the mainland, 2.5 million; Central and South Americans, 2.2 million, and Cubans, one million.

The unemployment rate among Hispanic Americans was 8.5 percent, as against 5.8 percent for the nonHispanic population.

A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 7, 1988, Section A, Page 20 of the National edition with the headline: U.S. Hispanic Population Is Up 34% Since 1980. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe See more on: Census Bureau, Share full article, Related Content https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/07/us/us-hispanic-population-is-up-34-since-1980.html

U.S. foreign-born population nears high, Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

The foreign-born population living in the USA has increased so rapidly that it could break a 125-year-old record within the next decade, according to a Pew Research Center report out Monday.

The percentage of people living in the USA who were born outside the country reached 13.7% in 2015 and is projected to hit a record 14.9% in 2025, the report said. The country's previous high of 14.8% was set in 1890, when waves of Irish, Italian, Polish and other immigrants were coming to the USA.

The findings come at a critical time in the presidential campaign as candidates from both parties debate the proper role of immigration in the country. The foreign-born population represents a growing share of the electorate that Democrats and Republicans court because that voting bloc is big enough to tip presidential elections.

Leading Republicans, including front-runner Donald Trump, say legal and illegal immigration have gotten out of control. Trump and others say the country needs to limit legal immigration, and all the GOP candidates push for increased border security.

Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, have adopted a more welcoming message, calling for protections for undocumented immigrants living in the country and an immigration system that helps some groups of immigrants enter the country.

The term "foreign-born" includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, visa holders and undocumented immigrants.

Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
92 Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a group that supports immigrant rights in the USA, said the influx of foreigners proves the USA remains a beacon of hope across the world, and politicians should accept that role for the country.

"The pure politics of this is that candidates from whichever party should view these numbers as the next generation of voters," Noorani said. "They should remember that what they say now will be taken into account by future generations of U.S. citizens."Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration, said Trump and others tap into a legitimate fear that immigration levels are getting out of control.

He uses the example of the late 19th century, when the USA hit its peak of those who were born in another country, creating an overabundance of workers competing for limited jobs. That prompted many Americans to call for an immigration slowdown and proved harmful to immigrants who struggled to get ahead, a situation Beck said is happening again.

"This has been our point all along: If you want to have a good situation for immigrants, there's a threshold that you've got to keep it below," Beck said. "We know what happened last time. It was a very difficult time. And it's not just about the American-born being hostile toward the foreign-born, but the inability of the foreign-born to get ahead, to live the American Dream."

The foreign-born population began to increase again after President Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 — 50 years ago this coming Saturday. The law eliminated quotas and limits on how many immigrants would be allowed into the USA. The act established a system focused on accepting immigrants with family ties in the USA and those with certain work skills.

Mark Hugo Lopez, co-author of the report, said some flows of migration to the USA, including illegal immigration, have slowed in recent years as the economy struggled and the federal government strengthened border security. But the foreign-born population continues to increase, because there are still far more people trying to reach the USA than trying to leave, he said.

Lopez said the characteristics of immigrants may change over time. For example, Asians will replace Latin Americans as the dominant minority force in the USA by 2055, and Africa may send more people to the USA and other countries in the upcoming decades. He said the idea of the USA as the world's most soughtafter destination for immigrants will remain.

"We have seen the United States change its immigration laws before. It became very restrictive in the 1920s, and it's very possible that could happen again," he said. "But today, more Americans believe immigration is a strength rather than a burden."

Other findings from the report:

The combined population share of foreign-born people and their U.S.-born children is 26%. Pew estimates that figure will continue rising to 36% in 2065.

Asians are set to surpass Hispanics as the largest immigrant group. In 2015, 47% of the foreign-born population is Hispanic, and 26% is Asian. By 2055, Pew estimates that 36% of the foreign-born population will be Asian, compared with 34% Hispanic.

Since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, immigrants, their children and grandchildren accounted for 55% of the country's population growth, a total of 72 million people.

More Americans (45%) say immigrants make American society better in the long run than those (37%) who say immigrants make it worse, according to a poll conducted by Pew for the report. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/28/us-foreign-born-population-nears-high/72814674/ Item 1
December 16, 2025
Item 1
December 16, 2025
93 Mexico Is Technically the ‘United Mexican States’ And Isn’t Too Happy About It, Mexico is sick of having to correct people on its name all the time, Colin Schultz, November 23, 2012

On October 4, 1824, Mexico ratified its first-ever constitution as an independent country, a document known as the “Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States.” Ever since that day, the country’s official name has not been Mexico, but rather, the United Mexican States. Like North or South Korea—The Democratic People’s Republic of Korean, or the Republic of Korea, respectively—Mexico almost never goes by its full and proper name. CNN: he reality is the official name is used only by Mexican officials who deal with diplomatic protocol and official documents pertaining to international relations. For the rest of Mexicans — and the world — the country is simply known as Mexico.

Apparently sick of living a double life, the Mexican (United Mexican Statesian?) President Felipe Calderon, “sent to the Mexican Congress a piece of legislation to change the country’s name officially to simply Mexico.”
President Calderon, however, is in the last leg of his term—the new President, Enrique Peña Nieto, takes over in a week. With time dwindling, says CNN, it’s not clear if Calderon’s re-naming proposal will go through.

Santa Monica City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
December 16, 2025