The Dangers of TikTok

In April 2020, a few of my friends finally convinced me to download TikTok. It is characteristic of me to be woefully behind on social trends — an example being that I did not download Instagram until my junior year of high school. Since I was already so disconnected from my friends due to the COVID-induced lockdowns at the time, I relented and downloaded the app — and what a mistake that was! I instantly found myself being bombarded with videos of all kinds: recipes, dance trends, comedy shorts, and many other types of content. One addicting thing about TikTok is the strategically-catered variety of content it offers. The app’s algorithm learns what you like scarily quickly and subsequently recommends similar videos in order to keep you interested. I, along with many other Americans who downloaded the app during the Pandemic, became TikTok addicts. Eventually, however, the whirlwind that was TikTok became too much for me, and I deleted the app over a year ago. At first, it was difficult to not have the option to distract myself from the day’s activities by going on TikTok since I had grown so accustomed to it. However, at this point in my life, I have now become so alienated from the world of TikTok that I forget it exists unless someone mentions it to me. So that begs the question: “Why am I writing this article?”

In mid-December, 2022, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bipartisan bill that would ban TikTok from operating in the United States, citing serious concerns about TikTok’s ties to China. Even though TikTok itself operates within the U.S., its parent company, ByteDance, is required by Chinese law to make data from TikTok available to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Therefore, many American lawmakers are fearful that the private information of American citizens is being abused by the CCP due to TikTok’s ties to ByteDance. Additionally, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced and helped pass a ban on TikTok on government devices. This bill was unanimously passed in the Senate, but still needs to pass the House of Representatives. However, the fact that it was unanimously passed in the Senate is telling; why would lawmakers so vehemently want to ban TikTok on government devices but not provide the same type of security to regular citizens? 

To be clear, banning TikTok is not a new endeavor. Some may remember that, back in 2020, the Trump administration also sought to ban TikTok in the United States. President Trump actually signed an executive order that banned TikTok from the app store that mentioned the concerns about TikTok’s apparent lack of privacy and the CCP connection. The executive order was immediately challenged for a multitude of reasons, one being that people were willing to give ByteDance and the CCP the benefit of the doubt. This assertion ignores the fact that the data belonging to regular American citizens were not private at all. One may actually find explicit evidence of this in TikTok’s own terms of service, which reads in part, “We automatically collect certain information from you when you use the Platform, including internet or other network activity information such as your IP address, geolocation-related data, unique device identifiers, browsing and search history (including content you have viewed in the Platform), and Cookies.” Despite this concerning admission of questionable privacy ethics, the Biden administration reversed the ban on TikTok in June 2021, with President Biden saying that he would resolve the problem in a “different way.” However, he has not taken any action on the issue during the course of his presidency, which is why Congress is taking the problem into their own hands. 

On top of the concerns about privacy, TikTok is dangerous for mental health reasons. A study was published in mid-December 2022 that exposed how TikTok intentionally recommends content that supports self-harm and eating disorders to young viewers. In the study, researchers set up fake TikTok accounts where they posed as 13-year-old users interested in content about body image and mental health. Within 2.6 minutes after joining the app, TikTok’s algorithm recommended them suicidal content, and eating disorder content was recommended within just 8 minutes. Additionally, over the course of this study, researchers found 56 TikTok hashtags hosting eating disorder videos that collectively had over 13.2 billion views. The CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, said, “TikTok is able to recognize user vulnerability and seeks to exploit it. It’s part of what makes TikTok’s algorithms so insidious; the app is constantly testing the psychology of our children and adapting to keep them online.”

Ultimately, it is undeniable that TikTok encourages degeneracy and is bad for the mental health of our citizens, but that is not reason enough to ban an app. However, it is paramount for the Federal government to get involved in the issue due to the national security threat that the app poses to us as citizens and to the United States as a country. Therefore, if you do not have a New Year’s resolution yet, here is a challenge: if you have TikTok, delete it as soon as possible, and if you do not have it, never fall to its temptations.

A License to Kill

There has been a growing movement pushing for the legalization and societal acceptance of assisted suicide that does not restrict itself to national boundaries. This phenomenon of euthanasia based on consent degrades human dignity by making life’s value wholly subjective. There is no logical limit to assisted suicide when it is allowed, as has been seen in practice in several countries. There is only one answer to this sinister threat that is tearing apart our respect for human existence, to radically value and defend all human life unconditionally.

The most prominent example of this growing culture of death can be seen in Canada. In 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned legal precedent by declaring that there exists a human right to assisted suicide in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following this ruling, physician-assisted suicide was legalized for patients (or victims) with terminal diagnoses through the Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD). Soon after, this law was expanded to include all Canadians with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The next step in this logical progression has occurred but is temporarily delayed due to popular outcry. Originally intended for 2023 but coming into effect next year, it will make mentally ill people with no other medical conditions be assisted in committing suicide, essentially creating suicide on demand.

This torrent of laws legitimizing and allowing euthanasia in Canada has destroyed, harmed, and threatened the lives of many Canadians. Every day twenty-seven Canadians commit suicide with the approval and support of a physician. One example of the effect of these new laws is the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols was placed on suicide watch at his local hospital by concerned relatives, but while in the hospital he was assisted by physicians in his own suicide by citing “hearing loss” after refusing to wear his cochlear implant. Randy Obenauer, a seventy-four-year-old man, apparently would cry while cleaning his catheter. After his friends tried to obtain assistance for him, authorities asked if he was interested in the MAiD program instead. Several veterans seeking assistance from the Canadian Veteran Affairs program were offered MAiD as an alternative to psychological and medical help. Canadian society has become unfortunately very comfortable with suicide, but it does not end with Canada.

Many countries in Europe have legalized assisted suicide. Germany has gone the farthest, with a 2020 German Supreme Court case establishing that every autonomous individual had the right to suicide and governmental assistance in that suicide. Otherwise, in Germany’s view, the fundamental human right to choose would be deprived from its citizenry. In the United States, eleven states allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has been the pioneering state in this regard, recently making it legal even for out-of-state residents to obtain suicide services. The Massachusetts legislature currently has a bill legalizing assisted suicide that Governor Maura Healey seems inclined to sign if passed. As grim as this story is, many will question why the state should force someone to live, especially those who are terminally ill.

Many people support the legalization of euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, with recent polling at 72% in favor in the United States. But this justification for suicide is flawed and damaging to human dignity. The value of human life is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness is not somehow less deserving of rights than someone who is healthy. The objective delineation between the terminally ill and the healthy is in the end arbitrary, as the human condition is ultimately terminal. Rather, the reason many sympathize with the terminally ill is the pain, both emotionally and physically, caused by such a devastating medical condition.

Extreme pain, emotionally and physically, can make life seem undesirable and too much of a burden for those afflicted with it. It becomes a struggle to do even the most basic tasks, and the chronic suffering can wear people down. Even the strongest amongst us would struggle with conditions such as depression or cancer. But once again, pain does not diminish the value of human life. Just because one loses the will to live, does not mean that living is unimportant. To prove this, I must ask an uncomfortable question that too many reading this are unfortunately familiar with. If your friend, who was in great suffering, came to you and confessed they were suicidal or actively intended to commit suicide, what would you do? Most people would try to comfort and support their friend in every way they can and do their best to ensure their friend gets help. Almost nobody would attempt to assist their friend in this horrible act. Some may consider that friend unable to consent properly due to their mental anguish, but how is their anguish significantly different from that experienced by the terminally ill? A lack of hope and belief in life is what drives people to this dark path, and we should do everything we can to prevent them from falling down it.

Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all know deep inside that life is a gift to be preserved. We know this in the same way that we know the rays of a dawning sun are beautiful and the sounds of a bird singing are musical. It has become easy to forget this simple fact while living in the modern world. We can seem so small and insignificant when compared to the billions of humans that cover this planet. Our identity is often devalued to just our GPA and what we contribute to GDP. Our lives can seem to become just hours of unremitting work and endless scrolling through social media. But life continues, and we must continue to live it as long as we are allowed to. There is a battle to be fought for human life without exception in the halls of power, behind podiums, and on television. But first, it has to be fought within each of ourselves and our relationship with others. Our current crisis of euthanasia is only enabled by a society that has grown callous to the amazing mystery and beauty of human existence. We must remember and believe in this universal truth, that life is worth living.

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new; the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially racially-focused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirty-seven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation.  As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The Left Believes No Human is Illegal, Until They’re Standing On Their Doorsteps

It’s rare nowadays to walk through a high end housing development without seeing an “In this house we believe…” sign on at least one home’s front lawn. The problem is, when a person places such a sign out on their front lawn, they better believe what it says. Unfortunately, in regards to immigration policy, it doesn’t seem that such individuals have any interest in practicing the beliefs they espouse on their yard signs.

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2016 Presidential Election, Kristin Garvey, a Wisconsin librarian, was particularly distraught that Trump had won the election. In awe of the result, Garvey decided to list key values of hers and other Americans that she believed would be threatened by the Trump administration on a white poster board. Shortly after images of her sign made their way to the internet, an activist noticed the sign and recruited an artist to rework it into a colorful yard sign along with the help of Garvey. After the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, sales for the sign spiked.

All across rural Vermont, my home state, such signs stood in the front yards of most homes immediately following the BLM protests. Many of my white classmates with such signs standing on their front lawns decided to post a black square on their Instagram pages, believing that such action would significantly benefit the African American community rather than directly engaging with African American individuals.

The very individuals decrying white privilege were the same people who failed to immerse themselves in communities with high percentages of non-whites. Perhaps this is because my friends live in rural Vermont, the state with the second highest percentage of whites of all U.S. states, at 94.2%, according to the World Population Review. The wealthiest members of our society living in bubbles secluded from reality often feel that they are the most qualified to offer critiques of the general population. This is elitism at its finest. Unfortunately, such elitism has transferred to other social issues too, the most recent example being elitist Democrats’ reaction to Republican governors sending migrants to liberal parts of the country.

A key line from Kristin Garvey’s “In This House We Believe…” sign is “No Human is Illegal.” As of late, it doesn’t seem as if the people with such signs on their front lawns have been obeying this key tenet of their belief system. As Democratic politicians bringing home salaries well into the six-figures decry the actions of Republican politicians sending migrants to Leftist havens of Washington, DC, Martha’s Vineyard, and in one case Vice President Harris’ home, they evade the necessary facts of the Biden administration’s current shortcomings in dealing with the out of hand crisis at our southern border with Mexico. Since President Biden took office on January 20, 2021 up until August 17, 2022, just about one month ago, nearly 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, according to Cision PR Newswire. According to agency reports, the crossings of approximately 900,000 illegal immigrants went undetected by American Border Protection Agencies. Of course, Biden has failed to take responsibility for such an uptick in illegal immigration flowing into the United States, constantly blaming the Trump administration for handing him the reigns to an incapable border response.

In response to calls that he tighten his policy regarding the border between the United States and Mexico, President Biden responded, “I make no apologies for ending programs that did not exist before Trump became president that have an incredibly negative impact on the law, international law, as well as on human dignity.” In essence, Biden, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his failure in dealing with an influx of migrants, instead deemed Trump’s actions to contain the threat as negatively impacting the global order. In fact, Biden’s actions, not Trump’s, appear to be a major threat to the global order because they have caused instability within the United States, typically thought of as the epitome of strength to the world.

The inactions of the Biden administration threaten the prospect for political stability within Central America through failing to address the ways in which some Mexican government officials have coached citizens in how to immigrate illegally to the United States as well as the shortcomings of Central American countries such as Honduras and El Salvador in failing to address transnational crime as laid out by a United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Minority Report. Additionally, a recent Department of Homeland Security report revealed that Venezuela was sending caravans of violent criminals to the U.S.-Mexico border as recently as July, in the hopes of migrating to the United States. This report further discloses that there have been nearly 130,000 encounters with Venezuelan migrants from October of 2021 up until July of 2022. These issues are very much at the root of our border crisis, as Central American political corruption and pervasive crime leads to cartels being at ease to take advantage of their governments.

As journalist Adam Isaacson wrote after many trips to the border in both the U.S. and Mexico, “It would be hard to devise a migration system that benefits…‘cartels’ more than the current one does” as of April 2022 under the Biden administration. These cartels are responsible for human trafficking and other human rights violations and crimes, often unchecked by the incompetent Biden administration. For instance, in June of 2022, Reuters reported that at least 51 migrants died “after being trapped inside a sweltering tractor-trailer truck found abandoned in Texas…” Two Mexican nationals ended up being charged in U.S. federal court in connection to this devastating incident, each “charged with possessing firearms while residing in the United States illegally” according to court documents and U.S. authorities. According to Craig Larabee, a special agent tasked with running the investigative arm of ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, referred to this particular event as marking “the greatest amount of loss of life on record from a human trafficking attempt in the U.S.” according to a Reuters news report. All this, blood on the hands of the Biden administration. It gets to the point where constantly blaming all of your administration’s incompetency wears off and the American people demand accountability rather than constant scapegoating. 21 months into a presidency is more than enough time to start accepting any shortcomings as your own.

What’s more disturbing than elected officials not taking responsibility for their actions in the current border crisis with Mexico is that they don’t have to feel the brunt of their foreign policy incompetency. Instead, everyday Americans living on our southern border and the governors of those states are tasked with either learning how to live with the constant threat of danger or formulating policies and taking action to counteract the incompetence of the federal government in regards to the latter. Recently, we’ve in fact seen governors take matters into their own hands through deciding to send migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, Washington DC, and Vice President Harris’ home in one instance. The White House has deemed the actions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in sending migrants from his state to Martha’s Vineyard as “disrespectful to humanity.” These words come from an administration that according to a June NBC news story, under the Department of Homeland Security planned to “transport migrants awaiting immigration proceedings from U.S. cities along the southern border farther into the interior of the country beginning with Los Angeles.” President Biden, just months earlier, planned to do the same thing that he chides Republican governors for currently doing. What’s more frustrating is that the only brunt of failed immigration policy that Biden has to deal with is that of public opinion. Republican governors, on the other hand, directly feel the effects of the Biden administration’s failures through being forced to determine what to do with an influx of migrants and how to incorporate them into their thriving society with jobs filled, among other difficulties that until now, Democratic leaders, especially President Biden, hadn’t really been forced to handle.

A second contradiction of the Left is that it openly encourages mass migration, calling for Americans everywhere to recognize the dignity of all immigrants regardless of legal documentation status, while referring to such migrants in a derogatory fashion when these migrants are at their front doorstep, in some cases, literally. Max Lefield, who helped found the Casa Venezuela Dallas foundation, which seeks to help migrants adjust to living in America, recently responded to DeSantis’ actions regarding sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard on charter planes. In his tweet, which was recently deleted by NBC News, Lefield said, “Florida Gov. DeSantis sending asylum-seekers to Martha’s Vineyard is like me taking my trash out and just driving to different areas where I live and just throwing my trash there.” Lefield benefits from providing shelter and support to illegal immigrants, yet compares such migrants to “trash.” This is emblematic of other actions of the Left, which has actively encouraged illegal immigration up to the point where Republican governors take action to deal with the implications of such policy, placing migrants on the doorstep of Democratic elites. Then, all of the sudden, these previously wonderful immigrants have to be sent to a Cape Cod military base because these Democrats can’t possibly be forced to deal with the problems they’ve created.

Conclusively, the Left’s response is emblematic of their tendency to employ “rules for thee, but not for me” approach. Until Americans recognize the massive hypocrisy and shortcomings of the Left’s response to immigration, specifically illegal immigration, our national security is in peril.

Another Pawn for the MAGA King

President Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, was warning against the dangers of hyperpartisanship that ultimately plunged the country into civil war.

Fast forward to 2022, and it appears that the Republican Party has finished building the house. The occupants? The MAGA Republican and the Moderate Republican.  And believe me, these factions are  keeping their distance.

The January 6th attack on the Capitol solidified support for the former president as the red line dividing the MAGA republicans and the “R.I.N.O.S” (Republican in Name Only) who have spoken out against the former president.  As polls increasingly point to Democratic gains in the midterm elections, the Republican Party will no longer be able to toe this line. Membership in the party will soon be based on one question: do you support the former president?

Ronny Jackson had to answer that question. The former physician to both former President Trump and Obama, won his bid for Texas’ 13th Congressional District in 2020, boosted by an endorsement from Trump. Since entering office, Jackson has been one of the most fervent supporters of former President Trump. And it’s not shocking why Trump endorsed Jackson. Jackson fits the bill for a MAGA Republican: faith-based, family-oriented, tough on crime, etc.

However, it is Jackson’s virtue-signaling support of veterans that demonstrates the dichotomy of the MAGA Republican. There is no question that Congressman Ronny Jackson is outspoken in his support for our nation's veterans.

As he should be. The only problem? Jackson is an empty suit when it comes to supporting veterans. 

A simple click on the veterans’ issues page of his campaign website is evidence of this.

There were two paragraphs on that tab. Barely. The tab lacked any notion of a coherent, specific plan to help our nation’s heroes.

Instead, he uses his words to prop himself up.

“As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.” 

Translation: I have no plan.

Congressman Jackson’s thirty-year service in the Navy is heroic, and must be emphasized. However, Jackson is another MAGA Republican to trade away the virtues of public service for the virtues of popularity.

The 2022 Midterm Elections will test the durability of the MAGA Republican platform. Swing states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are the crux to gaining the majority in Congress. The Republican nominees in these respective states, J.D Vance (R-OH) and Mehmet Oz (R-PA), are caricatures of former President Trump, as they are willing to reiterate every conspiracy theory and lie that Trump has claimed throughout his presidency for the glory of a Senate seat.

Pennsylvania Republicans practically handed the Senate seat to John Fetterman and the Democrats by nominating “Dr. Oz.” Oz has run a terrible campaign and is completely out of touch with working class Pennsylvanians. He has a net worth of $500 million, and owns ten properties. As of August 2022, the average salary in Pennsylvania is about $53,391. It will be interesting to see Oz debate Fetterman, especially when the only point he makes is that he was endorsed by Donald Trump.

J.D. Vance was once a never-Trumper. Aside from calling Trump “reprehensible”, he claimed that Donald Trump could become “America’s Hitler” in a text message sent to his law school roommate. So what does J.D. Vance do? Base his entire campaign on Donald Trump. On major issues, Vance has managed to weave tenets of Trumpism into every debate, interview, and town hall he participates in.

We always say that a monarchical system of government is the antithesis of the United States, but the MAGA faction of the Republican party has treated Trump like a Monarch. They know that they cannot win a Republican election without selling their morals for Donald Trump. Call it greed, a lust for power. It’s truly disheartening.

What is the MAGA Republican? The MAGA politician is blindly loyal to President Trump. No questions asked. He tells them to jump, they ask how high.  And the truth is whatever President Trump decides. If President Trump declares that the 2020 election was rigged, then it was rigged, despite the overwhelming evidence arguing against this. If President Trump brushes off the dangers of COVID-19, the MAGA politician must do so.

Why was the United States hit harder by COVID than other countries? Science points to many things: a lack of medical equipment, weak regulations regarding mask-wearing, and an incoherent and oftentimes contradictory strategy from the federal government. Ask Trump that question and he’ll say it’s due to the massive testing campaign ushered by his administration. 

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be fine”

• President Trump, January 22, 2020

More than one million Americans have died from COVID. 

In the MAGA Kingdom, truth is malleable. The moral compass is broken. Moral absolutism turns into Moral relativism. The Republican Party has an identity crisis. To win elections, the Republican Party must moderate its views and most importantly ditch Trump.

Hostile Institutions: The FBI and the Government’s War Against Its Citizens

On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago with authorization from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Ostensibly, the raid was authorized because of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified material. Setting aside the matter of the FBI looking the other way while Hillary Clinton maintained an unauthorized private email server in her basement and had aides smash her used phones, Trump is well within his rights to possess the material in question under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. But lest apathetic observers content themselves with the short-sighted prospect that their primary choices in 2024 may be made easier, President Trump’s statement that “they’re after you” has held true of the FBI for decades and is more pertinent than ever before.

Formed in 1908 to deal with the growing threat of anarchists in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was undoubtedly founded with the noble intention of bridging the gaps between state law enforcement agencies. However, as the FBI took an increasingly influential role in enforcement of Prohibition and the “war on crime,” it began to stretch its powers in questionable fashion. Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in the wiretapping of potential suspects, later being limited to bugging operations under the Communications Act of 1934. The Bureau took the opportunity in 1939 to compile a list of individuals who would be taken into custody in the event of a war. The FBI took action hours after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, arresting thousands over the course of a few weeks without warrants.

The FBI only became more brazen during the latter period of Hoover’s time as director. Under the Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit political organizations that the FBI deemed to be problematic. FBI agents resorted to disinformation, harassment, blackmail, and even violence in order to achieve these ends. Perhaps the most notable target of the COINTELPRO operations was Martin Luther King Jr. King was subjected to surveillance by the FBI, who then proceeded to send King an anonymous letter encouraging him to take his own life, which was accompanied by audio recordings of King’s alleged sexual dalliances.

A pair of incidents in the 1990s stand out as the most egregious examples of the FBI’s willingness to shed the blood of people it deemed to be enemies of the government, regardless of their actual innocence. After failing to show up to court on a firearms charge because of scheduling confusion in 1992, Randy Weaver refused to surrender to federal authorities due to fears of a setup. After an encounter with U.S. Marshals in which Weaver’s son, Sammy, was killed by law enforcement and Weaver’s friend Kevin Harris killed Deputy Marshal William Degan — for which Harris was later acquitted on self-defense grounds — the FBI set rules of engagement that allowed them to essentially shoot on sight. On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver as he was paying respects to his deceased son, then fired through the door of the cabin at Kevin Harris as Weaver fled to safety. Horiuchi struck and killed Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was standing behind the door with her baby in her arms. After surrendering days later, Weaver was acquitted of all charges except for missing his original court date and bail violation, for which he was released after sixteen months. The FBI was never called to account for its actions in the Weaver case.

One year later, after a botched ATF raid on the Mount Carmel compound over questionable firearms charges, the FBI began a 51 day siege of the Branch Davidians religious organization. During the siege, the FBI cut the power and water to the compound, blasted loud music and sounds at night, and ran over the vehicles of the Branch Davidians. On the final day of the siege, having grown impatient with the slow progress of negotiations, the FBI launched an assault with tear gas on the compound. The building burst into flames and burned to the ground, killing 76 people, including 25 children. The FBI admitted that the tear gas used in the assault was flammable, but has maintained that the Branch Davidians, and not the FBI, was responsible for the fire at the compound.

The American people are not exempt from similar treatment simply by virtue of the fact that they do not live on an isolated mountain range or in a religious compound in Waco. An organization that has overseen extensive espionage and the deaths of numerous innocent men, women, and children is unlikely to treat political enemies any differently than targets of its other operations, particularly considering the extremely partisan nature of the current administration. Indeed, parents who are concerned about the ideological indoctrination of the public school system have already been framed by the National School Boards Association as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to President Joe Biden, calling for FBI involvement. 

Rather than investigate concerned parents and the former President of the United States, it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.

Ukraine is Putin's Peril

Whether the Ukrainians win or lose the war with Russia, the ultimate loser is Vladimir Putin. His blundered invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the incredible resistance of the Ukrainians themselves against the Russian invasion, has opened a once in a generation opportunity that I pray our president can take. There have been three main benefits of this war for the United States. 

The war completely knocks Russia off the board as a serious threat. The Ukrainians, with the weaponry that has been supplied to them, have been able to completely decimate the Russian army. This is a tremendous benefit for the United States because it allows us to completely focus on China as the primary geopolitical threat. China has lost a powerful ally, been cut off from the world, and set diplomatic ties with the Europeans back decades. In 2018 the United States sought with great difficulty to prevent Europe from buying China’s 5g Wi-Fi system. If that happens again we won’t have to do any begging. Europeans also will not be as open to peace with China as they were in the past, which will unite the west against China. It also halts China’s ambition towards Taiwan because they know if they move against Taiwan, the United States and all of the west will react in unison to defend it. And no matter what your opinion is on Xi Jinping, he is not foolhardy enough to think he can take the entire West on by himself. So not only has the war revealed that Russia’s military is even weaker than expected, but it has also produced significant consequences for China.

The war has refocused the political calculation of almost every nation and causes a massive realignment in loyalties. Before this war the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was essentially defunct and countries were happy to make agreements with Russia because they faced no downsides. Whether it was the Europeans buying Russian oil, NATO members not spending enough on defense, or some nations simply staying neutral, Russia had not been seen as a threat. Instead it was merely a trading partner. But now all of that has changed. Germany will now invest more than 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) into the military which is a massive increase from the 1.5% it spent over the entire year. Europe also is cutting itself off from Russian natural gas and oil, realizing that it could be used as a weapon against them. Finally, previously neutral nations like Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are now joining both NATO and the European Union (EU). Meanwhile any nation that might have wanted to ally itself with Russia will now have to face the prospect of cutting themselves off from all of Europe and the United States. Presently, there is no incentive for any nation to align itself with Russia.

The west has been reunited under the American banner. Before the war the Europeans had largely been distancing themselves from the United States, and even other European states. As mentioned earlier NATO was basically defunct. The war in Ukraine reinvigorated the Europeans as they realized there are other threats in this war, and they cannot win without standing with the United States. This war has been a once in a generation foreign policy boon for the United States and her allies. Hopefully, President Biden does not mess it up, because another nation will take the lead, and we will be left behind if he does. 

We can finally defeat an enemy who we have been fighting for a century, since the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, and who has outlasted seventeen presidents, from Warren G. Harding to today with President Biden. If President Biden decides to actually take advantage of this moment we can not only finally defeat our longest-standing foe, but we can also reunite the west under a shared purpose, severely weaken China, and save millions of lives. But he cannot let this moment pass and he cannot let any other nation take the lead. He must take the advice of his predecessor, President Trump, and engage in America first foreign policy. Once he does so, America can finally defeat Russia.

The Fauci Complex

The one-sided Holy Cross love story continues as President Rougeau announced over email that Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. ‘62, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), will have the Holy Cross Integrated Science Complex named in his honor this coming June. I find this decision to be incredibly premature, and I believe it sets a bad precedent for the future by essentially endorsing individuals before their careers have even been concluded. In the announcement email, President Rougeau also emphasized Holy Cross’s commitment to social justice, which accompanies a number of earlier commitments to anti-racism. Yet, Holy Cross has decided to name another place on campus after a white man, snubbing a notable black alumnus, Clarence Thomas. Fauci has produced questionable Covid-19 policies and is actively involved in certain controversies that are yet to be resolved. His record should be allowed to be scrutinized over time to properly demonstrate what his legacy shall be.

This announcement came far too early as Fauci is still a very active participant in affairs that many would consider partisan. His oversight of US government decision-making during the pandemic has resulted in many questionable decisions that lack substantial reasoning and have no consideration for other factors like mental health and quality of life. I covered this issue more extensively last semester in the Fenwick Review and would advise all those who are interested to read that article. 

Additionally, Fauci is still under substantial scrutiny concerning NIH funding of suspect research overseas, and the possibility of a cover-up is a critical concern at this moment in time. With news stories that look bad for the media's agenda being suppressed and labeled as fake news, most notably the Hunter Biden laptop story,  begs the question if certain right-wing anti-Fauci “conspiracies” are really conspiracies, or reality. If Fauci is untrustworthy, then the media cannot push its Covid agenda. Thus, Fauci’s image must be protected, and stories about Fauci that do not paint him in a good light are labeled as fake news.

One example of a controversy relating to the experiments Fauci’s NIAID has funded involves suspicious use of fetal tissue and its unconfirmed origins. Even though I believe there is still a lot to be explored with these controversies and that they should be taken with a grain of salt, they are concerning nonetheless and deserved to be explored. The first example is that Fauci’s NIAID reportedly gave $400,000 to the University of Pittsburgh to perform an experiment where human fetal skin is grafted on the rib cages of mice to measure the hair growth. Many claim that the skin for the experiment was taken from the scalps of aborted babies. This experiment represents just one of many potential blots on Fauci’s legacy that have yet to be fully examined.

Another example that has been presumably disproved by fact-checkers, yet doubt still remains due to the apparent untruthfulness that the media has displayed in the past, is that Fauci, through the NIAID, sent funding to a lab in Tunisia where inhumane experiments that would not be allowed in the United States were performed on Beagles. In these experiments, beagles’ heads were put in cages to which sand flies were introduced to eat the dogs’ heads. After a bipartisan letter requested answers it was claimed that the NIAID was falsely attributed as a funder of this experiment although skepticism remains. The point here is not that Fauci was complicit in these inhumane actions, but that Fauci is still an evolving figure, whose legacy has not been fully decided yet. Holy Cross should not make any rash decisions for the sake of being able to advertise the Fauci complex on campus tours.

Two larger issues also concern Fauci as a figure of admiration. The first issue is the use of gain-of-function research. During testimony on this subject, Fauci clearly and deliberately lied and misled congress members conducting oversight. The question of the NIAID's use of gain-of-function research was raised by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in May of last year, where Fauci concretely asserted that “We did not fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Gain-of-function research is controversial because it is research that increases the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen, generally involving its transmissibility towards humans, and could result in a virus that could be a pandemic-level threat if done improperly and dangerously. It was not till October 20th of last year that Fauci’s claims were disproved by a letter sent to Congress by the NIH, the parent organization of Fauci’s NIAID, which stated that gain-of-function research was funded and did occur in the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the NIAID. As of April of this year, Rand Paul has noted to the press that 11 yes or no questions related to gain-of-function research were given to Fauci in January that have still not been answered, pointing to a clear case of stonewalling of congressional oversight.

This first controversy segues into the lab leak theory; the second big controversy that will undoubtedly become more clear with time. The lab leak theory postulates that COVID-19 was in some way created in a lab and then somehow released into the public, resulting in the deaths of millions from COVID-19. The concern with Fauci is that his NIAID funded the gain-of-function research that took place on coronaviruses in bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and with a bat from Wuhan having been determined to be the origin of the virus, much concern is raised about the possibility of Fauci and the NIAID’s involvement in the creation of COVID-19. While I highly doubt that Fauci and the NIAID deliberately created that COVID-19 virus, the research done in Wuhan with the Chinese scientists under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party raises great concern. Seeing how Fauci lied about the NIAID’s involvement in gain-of-function research, the idea that Fauci may be lying about the origins of COVID-19 to protect himself is concerning and should be given greater scrutiny. Fauci’s legacy is still up in the air, and if internal emails or other evidence are revealed in the future that confirms suspicions about misconduct around experiments that Fauci’s NIAID funded, the College would be in a terrible position.

One might ask why this needed to be done. Did the science complex really even need a name in the first place? If Holy Cross is choosing to set a precedent for naming complexes after currently acting important figures, who have yet to finish their careers, then I request that President Rougeau name the complex consisting of O’Kane, Fenwick, Smith, and the Brooks Concert Hall the Thomas Complex, in order to honor United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is currently the longest-serving justice on our nation's highest court, having held his position for 30 years and is a Holy Cross Alumni class of 1971, and has had a long career of originalist and textualist interpretation of the constitution. Thomas has rejected the notion of legislating from the bench, unlike other activist judges who seek to make policy through their decisions, and through this has stood up for the rights enshrined in the constitution for three decades.

Through dedicating this building to Justice Thomas, Holy Cross can take a step to make good on its policy of “anti-racism” and social justice by dedicating an unnamed complex to an esteemed and accomplished black civil servant who could give black students on campus representation that a complex named after another white man cannot give. Naming the complex after Justice Thomas would then accompany Healy residence hall as the only other building on campus named after a black man, even though it is noted that Healy identified and passed as white during his lifetime. During his time at Holy Cross, Justice Thomas helped found the Black Student Union on campus and stood up against a racist Holy Cross administration during a walkout to protest unfair treatment. Despite my request, I would rather see that neither man is honored on campus just yet, as the two are still evolving figures, whose legacies can still be shaped dramatically.

All in all, Fauci is fundamentally a political figure at this point in time, just like Justice Thomas, and setting the precedent of naming buildings or complexes after still active figures is a premature action to take. By naming the entire science complex after Fauci, other names within the science complex are minimized, and by using his name, Holy Cross appears to endorse every action that Fauci undertakes, some of which have yet to take place. It is clear that Fauci has done significant work in his field, much of which he should be applauded for, but certain controversies have yet to be resolved, and certain information has yet to be revealed, particularly about the pandemic. In this way, Fauci is still a polarizing figure, and any dedication to him should be postponed until his full history and legacy are made apparent over time.