The Fenwick Review's 2022 Election Day Predictions

Our final prediction for the control of the Senate will be with the Republicans having the majority, holding 52 seats to the Democrats’ 48 seats. We predict Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia will flip for the Republicans and rate them as tilt Republican, Wisconsin is lean Republican, and North Carolina is likely Republican. We predict Arizona and New Hampshire will remain Democratic, rating them respectively as tilt and lean Democratic. We will now go over the majority of the battleground states and why we expect the result we’ve predicted. 

Arizona: 

Though Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake is pulling ahead in her race, we do not expect her senatorial counterpart Blake Masters to ride her coattails into victory. Senator Mark Kelly has a strong fundraising advantage with a solid resume stacked with experience coupled with his moderately toned rhetoric. We predict that although the election will be a nail-biter, with polling within the margin of error, Senator Kelly will narrowly pull off a victory.  

Pennsylvania:  

Incumbent Senator Pat Toomey (R) is retiring after 2 terms, and his seat is being sought by Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman and Republican celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz. Oz has been gaining a lot of ground in recent polling, and coupled with Fetterman’s disastrous debate performance, extreme leftism, and his flip-flopping between positions, we expect the race to tilt toward Oz’s favor.  Furthermore, the Governor’s race being favored for Democrats does not spell doom for Oz, as a recent article from The Hill indicates around 10% of Shapiro voters plan to vote for Oz.

Wisconsin: 

Republican Ron Johnson, who was expected to lose against Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, is now up five points in recent polling. This comeback has been due to the fact that Johnson has been hammering Barnes for supporting the Kenosha riots that happened in 2020, along with heavy disapproval of President Biden in the state. With such a substantial lead, we expect that Ron Johnson will keep his seat in the Senate. 

Nevada: 

Republican Adam Laxalt is running an incredible campaign against incumbent Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto. The Hill finds he is up by 5 points in a state that President Biden won by 2.5 points just two short years ago. In fact, it is so bad that Cortez-Masto is still running introduction ads in her own state as the incumbent. So, a combination of Laxalt being able to pin Cortez Masto down on domestic issues, as well as strong national tides against the Biden administration, we expect Laxalt to win a small yet consequential victory.  

Georgia: 

Governor Brian Kemp’s strong run against Stacey Abrams, leading on average by 7 points, is expected to drag Herschel Walker to victory in his race against Senator Raphael Warnock. Despite his baggage, Herschel Walker has taken advantage of the current political climate, with significant dissatisfaction with President Biden and the Democratic agenda in the state, leading us to believe that he has a strong chance at capturing the seat for the Republican Party.

Florida:

In Florida, Senator Marco Rubio is running against Representative Val Demings, averaging a lead of 7 points. We predict that Rubio will retain his seat, given Florida’s strong tilt towards Republican candidates in recent years along with the party’s heavy voter registration initiative in the state that has significantly expanded the party’s base there.  

Ohio:

In Ohio, Republican candidate  JD Vance is running against Democratic Representative Tim Ryan. Vance is predicted to take this Senate seat as he leads by about three points in recent polling. However, we expect the final results to produce a larger margin of victory given President Trump’s significant margin just 2 years ago along with the state’s strong tilt toward the GOP.

Colorado:

In Colorado, Republican Joe O’Dea is facing incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. We predicted that Senator Bennett will retain his seat, currently holding about a ten-point lead over O’Dea in polling. This along with the state’s strong Democratic tilt, having voted for President Biden by 14 points, is expected to prove insurmountable for Joe O’Dea to tackle. 

New Hampshire:

In New Hampshire, Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan is running for reelection against Republican Don Bolduc. We predict that Bolduc will not be able to clench that seat, as his weak fundraising and conservative stances have proven challenging to take on the one-term incumbent. Bolduc, who emerged from the party’s primary with President Trump’s endorsement, has alienated independent and swing voters, helping Senator Hassan solidify her base as a moderate and stable candidate. 

Utah:

In Utah Senator Mike Lee is running against independent candidate Evan McMullin. It is highly unlikely that McMullin will take the seat due to the fact that in his last election Senator Lee won nearly 70% of the vote. McMullion is currently being backed by the Democrats in this race but it won’t really matter. The only real big news of this race is the fact that Mitt Romney hasn’t endorsed Mike Lee. But again since Lee won by such a big margin, and Utah is such a red state, Mike Lee will almost definitely remain in the Senate

Governor’s Races

Oregon:

In Oregon we expect Republican Christine Drazan to beat out Democrat Tina Kotek and Independent Betsy Johnson. In the latest polling Drazen is up at around 42%, with Kotek trailing at 39%, and Johnson at around 17%. Since Johnson is running as a moderate candidate and Kotek is running as a progressive Democrat, we expect a splitting of the traditionally Democratic vote. Combined with concerns of rising crime and drug overdoses around cities like Portland, and again an overall positive ground for Republicans, we predict that Drazan will be able to eke out a win in this race

Pennsylvania: 

In Pennsylvania, we expect Democrat Josh Shapiro to beat Republican Doug Mastriano. The latest polling has the candidates within the margin of error between each other. But due to Mastriano’s hyper-Trumpian campaign, even being present at the January 6th Insurrection, and with Shapiro’s moderate positions along with establishment support, we expect Shapiro to pull out a win in this race.  

Georgia:

In Georgia we expect Republican Governor Brian Kemp to beat Democrat Stacy Abrams in his reelection. He is up on average by about 8 points. Brian Kemp is running a very strong race against Stacey Abrams and has been able to resist the more Trumpian aspects of election denial while also making a strong case against an increasingly divisive Stacey Abrams. Due to his strong campaign, we expect him to easily retain his governorship.

Florida:

In Florida we expect Governor Ron DeSantis to beat Charlie Crist in his reelection campaign. He is on average up by 11 points which is a significant shift from 2018 when he won his governor’s race by only 30,000 votes. Desantis also enjoys one of the largest war chests ever compiled, amounting to nearly $100 million raised. So while this victory may not be the biggest shock, it is still very important and a potential signal towards his plans in 2024.

Texas:

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbot is predicted to beat Democrat Robert “Beto” O’Rourke. Governor Abbott leads by an average of 10 points in polls according to Real Clear Politics. O’Rourke, like his fellow Democrat Stacey Abrams, has been positioned as a radical figure in national politics. Though his campaign for Senate in 2018 was very successful for a Democrat, O’Rourke trounced state politics in favor of the national stage. His positions have alienated parents and conservative Southerners alike, and coupled with Governor Abbott’s steady candidacy, we expect the Governor to retain his seat. 

Arizona:

In Arizona, Republican Kari Lake is expected to beat Democrat Katie Hobbs. In the latest polling, Lake is leading by around three to five points in state polls. Her on-television persona and easy-to-approach personality have brought her immense popularity on social media. Combined with the fact that Hobbs is suffering from an especially harsh environment for Democrats and the ongoing border crisis, we expect that Kari Lake will become the next governor of the Grand Canyon state. 

Nevada:

In Nevada, Incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak is running against Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo. In the current polls, Lombardo has led by one point. But the more recent polls have him taking between a three and four-point lead over Sisolak. Because of the likely success of his counterpart Adam Laxalt in the concurrent Senate race, we predict that Lombardo will be able to eke out a victory against Sisolak.

New York:

Currently, New York has proven to be a disaster-in-waiting for state Democrats, as they are currently rushing to pour millions of dollars into media buys to prop up incumbent Democratic governor Kathy Hochul as she faces Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin. Zeldin has caught up in recent polling, with one poll even edging out Hochul by one point. However, given New York’s very strong Democratic lean and New York City’s usual turnout rate, we expect Hochul to very narrowly retain her seat. 

Wisconsin

Incumbent Democratic Governor Tony Evers faces Republican businessman Tim Michels. Wisconsin has long been a battleground state, swaying their votes between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. However, Evers has faced heavy criticism from state residents over rising crime and homelessness, especially from the Kenosha riots. Michels has caught up and led in polling, and we expect him to trounce the incumbent governor. 

House Predictions:

We predict a Republican majority will emerge in the House of Representatives, with the GOP netting at least 15 seats in the elections. A GOP House majority has been a forgone conclusion, but the extent of their victory is still a matter of debate.  FiveThirtyEight currently has the GOP’s chances of gaining a majority in an 85-in-100 chance, while Real Clear Politics suggests Republicans will pick up anywhere from 15 to 50 seats.

Virginia’s 7th 

Incumbent Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D) is facing Prince William County Supervisor Yesli Vega in one of the most competitive battleground districts in the country. The representative won her reelection bid last year by a mere 8,000 votes. With Governor Glenn Youngkin taking the district by 10 percentage points and Virginians disapproving of the Biden administration in staggering numbers, we expect Vega to eke out a narrow win in this district with a rating of ‘Tilt R.’

New York’s 17th 

Representative Sean Patrick Maloney entered the race for this newly redesigned district after incumbent Congressman Mondaire Jones decided to run in New York’s 10th district. Maloney faces Republican Assemblyman Mike Lawler. Maloney’s unpopularity in his district along with recent polling showing Lawler ahead by an average of 5 points show a probable pickup for the GOP, unseating Maloney who also serves as the House Democratic Caucus’ chief campaign director. We rate this race as ‘Likely R.’

New Hampshire’s 1st 

Incumbent Congressman Chris Pappas faces Republican Karoline Leavitt for the highly contested district, with the district having changed party control more times on average than others around the country. Pappas and Leavitt, supported by millions of dollars in outside spending, are in a dead heat in polling, with Pappas leading by less than 2 points. The concurrent Senate race however may prove helpful to Pappas as Senator Hassan could pull Pappas across the finish line in the Granite State. Therefore, The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt D.’

Maine’s 2nd

Incumbent Democrat Jared Golden faces former Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin, whom Golden unseated 4 years ago. The race is noteworthy for its use of ranked-choice voting, which has brought it great media attention. Though President Trump did win the district with 53%, the state’s strong Democratic tilt and the fundraising lag Poliquin suffers from, we predict the seat will be narrowly retained by Golden, with a rating of ‘Tilt D.’ 

Michigan’s 7th

Incumbent Democrat Elissa Slotkin faces Republican Tom Barrett in a district President Trump carried by almost 2 points. The race has been dubbed the most expensive race in the country, having spent an aggregate $27 million. We predict a GOP pickup here, given the recent momentum Barrett has seized from President Biden’s high disapproval rate and heavy outside spending from the NRCC and RNC. The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt R.’

Rhode Island’s 2nd

Former Cranston Mayor Allan Fung (R) and Rhode Island Treasurer Seth Magaziner (D) are battling to replace retiring Rep. James Langevin (D) in a district President Biden won handedly.  Mayor Fung’s popularity in Rhode Island’s 2nd largest city, his moderate and pro-abortion Republican image in the likeness of Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) who endorsed him, and a strong Republican environment make this race super competitive.  By account of this district’s Democrat leanings and a strong Republican candidate and environment, The Fenwick Review rates this race as a ‘Toss-up.’

Alaska’s At Large

Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) won a special election earlier this year against former Gov. Sarah Palin, a Tea Party candidate, and Nick Begich, a moderate Republican.  The split in Republican votes favored Peltola, who is benefitted by a mutual endorsement of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and the use of ranked-choice voting also favored her, as many moderate Begich supporters favored Peltola over conservative Palin as their second choice when Begich was eliminated in the first round.  Increased turnout in this Republican-leaning state as well as a more favorable environment for Republicans in November may give Republicans a chance to retake this seat, but with the use of ranked-choice voting and the split moderate Republican vote, The Fenwick Review rates this as ‘Leans D.’

Texas’ 34th

Rep. Mayra Flores (R-TX) became the first Mexican-born Congresswoman earlier this year in a special election to replace Rep. Filemon Vela (D-TX) in a blue-leaning district that has swung toward the GOP in recent years.  This seat was redistricted to be even bluer, while the neighboring 15th District was redistricted to be redder, causing 15th District incumbent Rep. Vicente Gonzalez — who won his 2020 race only narrowly under the old lines — to run in Flores’s district.  While Flores started as an underdog in the D+9 district, the Republican trends in South Texas and her strength as a candidate may overcome the new lines and the fact she’s running against a more established incumbent.  Because of the mixture of factors, The Fenwick Review rates this race as a ‘Toss-up.’

Oregon’s 5th

Earlier this year, moderate Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) lost re-nomination to progressive Jaime McLeod-Skinner.  This, combined with a strong Republican environment, an unusually competitive gubernatorial race, and a solid GOP candidate in Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has led this blue-hued purple district drawn specifically by the Oregonian legislature to shore up Democratic representation to be one of the easier pickups for the GOP.  The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Leans R.’

Connecticut’s 5th

Rep. Jahana Hayes (D) is facing a surprisingly tough reelection bid against state Senator George Logan (R).  Logan, a Black pro-abortion moderate, has generated steam in this Republican-favored environment against the progressive Democrat Hayes, capitalizing on the high crime and inflation message on which many Republicans in blue areas are campaigning.  Logan, like Senate hopeful Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, has advocated balance in Congress, stating he would oppose any legislation that would interfere with abortion law in Connecticut.  With the state and the district’s Democratic lean and relatively strong incumbent, The Fenwick Review rates this race as ‘Tilt D.’

Letter from the Editors, October 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up this issue of The Fenwick Review!  As the 2022-2023 school year begins, so too has the machinery of politics restarted in earnest. With the 2022 midterm elections fast approaching, critical issues of border security, inflation, and political overreach by the Department of Justice are at the forefront of public debate and discussion.

It is fitting, therefore, that this latest issue of The Fenwick Review is chock full of formidable pieces about these pertinent issues. Whether you want to consider the latest news about the immigration hypocrisy from the residents of Martha's Vineyard, hear about Holy Cross' newfound virtue-signaling enterprise, or learn the gritty details about the sordid history of the FBI as a political instrument, The Fenwick Review has an article to slake your political interests (or at least take your mind off that urgent, multi-page paper).

Always with its finger on the pulse of the culture, The Fenwick Review also features an examination of American religious disaffiliation, along with a continuation of our recently-inaugurated “The Review Reviews” section with an eloquent appraisal of the Yakuza video game series.

We acknowledge that this magazine's reputation precedes it. Some love it, some loathe it. Some read it in public, while others hide their readership in the privacy of their rooms. Some laugh out loud, while others gnash their teeth. Whatever emotion drives you to pick up a copy, we are always grateful for your continued readership.

We at The Fenwick Review pray that you may have a successful and enriching semester, and we look forward to continuing our mission of upholding and presenting that which is true and beautiful.

Sincerely,

Evan Poellinger & Anthony Cash, Co-Editors-in-Chief

Worcester’s “Pill Man” Is Trying to Save Lives

If you’ve eaten at Miss Worcester’s Diner, you may have seen Frank Huntley’s original sculptures, which he displays regularly outside the Cash-4-Clothes store where he works. His piece “Blackout” is a sculpture of a humanoid figure fashioned from liquor bottles, beer cans, and nips. Next to that is “Addiction”, which features a hollowed-out figure filled with soda cans, food containers, cannabis wrappers, condoms, and other items which Huntley has used to symbolize addiction. And last is his Magnum Opus — the work which started it all — a sculpture titled “Pill Man”. 

“Pill Man” is a skeleton made from prescription pill bottles — each bearing the name “Frank Huntley.”  “This was me for fifteen years,” Frank tells The Fenwick Review, “I want people to see my work and think twice about throwing it away for addiction.”  Frank built Pill Man from the skeleton of an old Frankenstein costume, and he believes that to be a representation of the way he rebuilt his life from addiction to where he is now.

Huntley, now age 55, grew up in Chelsea, Massachusetts. His father worked very hard to support his children, and taught Frank how to paint and wallpaper houses. Following in his father’s footsteps, Frank entered the trade and was successful until he was injured in the late 90’s in a small vehicular accident. 

His doctor prescribed him Percocet — an opioid — and when his body built up a tolerance for it, he prescribed him OxyContin — another opioid. When he built up a tolerance for OxyContin, they gave him Methadone so that he wouldn’t have to take so much OxyContin. His addiction to these drugs began to take control of his life. “The drug controlled me, morning, noon and night”, says Huntley. “I used to have panic attacks when I’d misplace my pills, since I’d hide them when my kids’ friends would come visit. I became someone different — someone that wasn’t me.”  

Growing up in Chelsea, Huntley had a lot of peer pressure to try different drugs, but he credits an experience he had at the age of fifteen to opening his eyes to the terrifying effects of substance abuse. “When I was 15,” says Huntley, “A friend of mine came over to my girlfriend’s house, and he said, ‘could I get high?’”

“I thought he was going to smoke a joint. He came in with a needle and a strap, and I said ‘What’s that?’ He told me it was heroin, and to watch, so he tightens his strap and shoots up, and within ten seconds he’s a different guy. Screaming and sweating and shaking. Scares the hell out of me, so bad I never did heroin — never wanted to become something like what I was seeing.”

By his mid-40’s that’s what Frank Huntley had become. He was crippled by his addiction to painkillers, tobacco, alcohol, “and Mountain Dew!” says Frank. “That stuff is nasty, just plain syrup, but just as addictive as a cigarette.” But it was his opioid addiction that largely controlled his life, “You see all these addicts on the street standing around like zombies. That’s where I was, pretending to live a life. At my worst I was 125 pounds.”

Huntley says it took the revocation of his doctor’s medical license for him to start his road to recovery. He was supposed to go to a liquid methadone clinic, but Frank argues that these clinics were just bureaucratic cover-ups for the larger problem at hand. “My brother started at that clinic twenty-five years ago and he still needs it to live his life. Two sets of kids — he’d pack them all into his car and take them with him at five in the morning. It’s like the clinics take away the pain while the drug takes away your life.”

So instead of going to the clinics or to rehab, Huntley stayed at home to take care of his son, Trevor, who lives with severe disabilities.  Frank says that, ironically, it was Trevor who ended up taking care of him during his recovery. “He helped me, he gave me a reason to win the fight. He is a blessing and a miracle.”  

Despite his disabilities, Trevor achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. He received a Key to the City of Worcester in March of 2017 for his award, and Frank is prouder of him than anything else. “I’m grateful for a lot of folks who’ve helped me along the way, but none of them more than my children.”

When Frank’s daughter had a baby six years ago, he felt he had another reason “to find [his] destiny away from drugs”. Unfortunately, Frank wasn’t out of the clear yet. He noticed that he was having severe difficulty walking. Frank stated that he could not even walk with his granddaughter in the park.  Frustrated, Frank went to a doctor, who said the years of smoking cigarettes caused Frank’s main artery to clog, even after quitting several years before.  They immediately rushed him into emergency surgery.

“That doctor must have had miracle hands,” says Frank. “God gave him miracle hands, and I woke up, and bit by bit I started to get better. And now I can take my granddaughter on a walk, and I realize that it was all worth it to get better.”  The long, curved scar left on Frank’s torso is a reminder of the price of addiction but also of the mountain he overcame.  

Since he started taking opiates, Frank saved the bottles. He says he wasn’t quite sure why, but that he’s sure glad he did. His “Pill Man” stands as a powerful symbol for overcoming addiction, and he wants more people to see it because he hopes it will remind them how drugs take people’s lives.

“You see them everywhere, around this part of town. Slumped over and dumb. But people don’t want to do anything about it, it makes them too uncomfortable. These people were others’ family members. They could have been lawyers, doctors, and look at them now. Don’t judge them. They’re our brothers and sisters.”

Frank hopes that more people will see his work, and he is working on a new sculpture focused on spreading awareness about cannabis use.

October 1st is the 9th anniversary of Frank Huntley’s victory against opiates, and August 26th was the 8th anniversary of his victory against tobacco.  Since October 1st, 2013, Huntley has been working to make a better life for himself and others struggling with addiction.  He recently spoke at Worcester State University on the dangers of addiction, and Huntley recalls bringing Pill Man to political campaigns during elections to raise awareness of the Opioid Epidemic to voters and candidates.  Huntley stresses that he does not want to stop people from taking their prescribed medications, but that he simply wants to raise awareness and ensure people are informed about not only opioid addiction, but unhealthy addictions to alcohol, marijuana, food, sex, and the list goes on.

“Don’t let these things control you,” Frank told us, “and you’ll have a wonderful life. It’s not your destiny, and it’s up to you to find that destiny.”  Be sure to say hello to Frank if you ever end up on that side of town. Besides working at Cash-4-Clothes, he sells homemade Halloween costumes on the side. You’ll be sure to find him there if you catch him before he leaves at seven, living his honest, clean life to the fullest.

Defending the Defenders: ROTC at Holy Cross

Every September 14th since 1982, protestors have come to Holy Cross to demand the removal of the ROTC, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, program from the College. This year was no exception, with protestors handing out flyers describing their beliefs to students on the steps of Dinand Library. This demonstration is led by members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who are Catholic pacifists. They argue, quoting both the Bible and notable Jesuits, that the Christian faith and any form of violence are fundamentally incompatible.  Training for war should not exist at an institution of higher learning, especially a Jesuit liberal arts college, according to the demonstrators. They believe that ROTC takes advantage of impoverished students by offering free college tuition, doing little more than making the poor fight the wars of rich men.

Certainly, pacifism has a place within society. The Christian tradition has a long history of pacifism, including those who refuse to choose violence even when their own lives are at stake. Martyrs such as St. Peter, St. Sebastian, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and even Christ Himself are demonstrators of the nobility of those who choose not to lower themselves to violence. They remind humanity that violence should not exist, and that evil has corrupted the human soul and world. Even outside an explicitly religious context, non-violence has been proven to be an effective way to change societies and the human heart. The Civil Rights Movement with MLK Jr. and the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi show that peaceful protests can work. But do not be mistaken — there are times when violence is justified and necessary.

Christianity has long held the idea that just wars are not only possible, but even necessary in a fallen world. In the Old Testament the Jewish Kingdoms were instructed many times by God to go to war to defend themselves. Later, as Christianity began to spread  in the Roman Empire and eventually become dominant, Christians found themselves having to understand the relationship between their faith and the necessity to defend their civilization. St. Augustine in the early fifth century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and other theologians have all discussed this idea. It has been agreed, in both Catholic doctrine and much of wider Christian thinking, that wars in the pursuit of peace and defense of the common good — if waged morally — are not only justified, but could even be the duty of a society. This is not just an invention of post-Biblical thinkers, however; passages such as Luke 3:14, Romans 13:4, and more all suggest the justification of warfare in certain contexts. An understanding of the necessity of warfare and militaries is not something that only exists within the Christian context. Other faiths, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, along with secular thinkers also agree with the justification of armed conflict.

This is because the failures of society-wide pacifism are evident to all critical-thinking human beings. If the United States did not have a military and was unable or unwilling to protect itself and the free world, who would instead reign? At this moment, a war is waging in Eastern Europe between Putin’s autocratic regime in Russia and the people of Ukraine who only desire to live independent and happy lives free of tyranny. Would the protestors who came to Holy Cross recently tell those people to lay down their weapons and live as slaves? Well, they very well might, as they complain of the US “financing a seemingly endless war in Ukraine” in their handouts. Meanwhile in East Asia, the People’s Republic of China threatens the free people of Taiwan, menacing the small island nation with constant aerial incursions and declarations of an inevitable reunification. It is only with the deterrence of war through military strength by nations such as the United States can we hope a shooting war does not begin in the near future. History has also demonstrated the necessity of violence to protect what is right, as seen in America’s own history with World War 2 and the American Civil War. If it is clear that wars are sometimes justified and necessary, and therefore militaries are essential to the protection of free societies, why should America not want its military officers properly educated?

One of the key reasons for students at Holy Cross to receive a liberal arts education is that regardless of their career path after graduation, a broad education and understanding of the world will be invaluable. A military career does not make one ineligible for such an education. Do warriors not need to be able to think and understand? We want sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen who are intelligent and well-rounded individuals. We want our nation’s guardians to have instilled in them the Jesuit, Catholic tradition of the College of the Holy Cross that enables them to be “men and women for and with others.” We want servicemen and women who love and respect human life, understand what is right and wrong, and have the knowledge and strength to protect good and fight evil. What we do not want are uneducated and improperly formed brutes, like those who committed war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. What we do not want are unthinking automatons, like those who marched under the swastika eighty years ago. If we truly desire intelligent and moral leaders in our military, what better place to educate them than Holy Cross?

Our college certainly has its issues, the price of tuition being one of them. Many readers would agree with the idea that tuition should be lower than it is now, tuition with room and board costing a colossal $74,980. But, the idea that the ROTC program takes advantage of the poor by offering a full scholarship for eligible cadets is incorrect. Should society not reward those who risk so much to protect it? Across the United States, there already are many veterans who lack proper health coverage for service-related injuries and struggle to attain valuable employment. Taking away any such scholarship for our officers would not only decrease economic mobility for those who would no longer be able to attend college, but also saddle both our active-duty military members and veterans with large debts. If one wants to address the student loan crisis as a whole, that is a valuable conversation, but it is separate from the legitimacy of ROTC at the College of the Holy Cross. Those who serve the United States and are willing to put themselves in danger’s way should be honored and cared for.

So, should ROTC continue to be offered at the College of the Holy Cross? It certainly should, as our military is necessary for our defense and needs educated leaders. Holy Cross, with our uncommon Catholic liberal arts tradition, is a perfect place for our servicemen and women to be trained. Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.

Schuler Access Initiative Insanity

On the morning of September 14, 2022, President Rougeau announced that the College of the Holy Cross will be partnering with the Schuler Education Foundation through its Schuler Access Initiative. This Foundation states that it is “committed to investing in access for undocumented and Pell-eligible students.” I do not have a problem with private organizations and entities providing financial assistance to college students. However, I do have a problem with organizations and entities providing financial assistance to undocumented immigrants, as this creates incentives for illegal immigration and results in an inevitable influx of immigrants. Recent news has demonstrated that the United States cannot handle immigrants as easily as some may think, with governors such as Texas governor Greg Abbot authorizing initiatives for immigrants to be bussed to different democrat-controlled portions of the country, including DC, New York City, and even Martha’s Vineyard. These ventures have proved to Democrats in those areas that the struggles of handling any number of migrants, legal or not, is a difficult task.

Now, before I start, I would like to get the correct wording out of the way. The politics of immigration is wrought in the media and debate stages with the divide between undocumented and illegal immigrants. Here, I will choose to denote those immigrants who have entered the country illegally as unauthorized because that term is arguably the most correct. Undocumented implies there is some sort of mistake and that these immigrants simply do not have documentation, ignoring the violation of the law in the process. Illegal cannot be used because illegal describes an action and not a person. Despite this, the term illegal immigration is still correct because the immigrants did illegally immigrate. The issue of rhetoric in this particular section of American life has become a litmus test for where you stand, instead of trying to properly describe the situation. That is why I will be using the terms unauthorized immigrant and illegally immigrated in this article.

The main issue that arises from policies like what Holy Cross is pursuing is that it creates incentives for illegal immigration in an already stressed system. The College should provide financial aid for those in need, but to explicitly target unauthorized immigrants creates a dangerous message; not only will we not send you back to your country of origin, but that we will also give you and your family opportunities that some Americans do not even have access to. 

I would like to make it very clear that I do not believe that Holy Cross is single handedly causing a migrant crisis. I would instead like to point out how Holy Cross’ decision to join the trend of virtue signaling on the issue of immigration does little to help immigrants and does more to hurt Americans who have to deal with the influx along the border. Holy Cross alone does not hold enough power to incentivize illegal immigration, but through advertising together with other colleges across the country, it creates a dangerous narrative. Illegal immigration is fueled by two factors: How bad are the conditions in my home country? And how likely am I going to be able to cross and settle into this new country? Colleges creating this narrative that Americans are looking for unauthorized immigrants to educate cultivates a sense that not only are they welcome here, but they are wanted, which is even more dangerous as it actively invites them.

So, the question must be asked then, is illegal immigration even bad? Some may point to the fact that unauthorized immigrants work jobs that normal Americans would not, doing construction or farm labor, often for less than minimum wage. This view is inherently selfish, as it implies that those not born in the US and come here illegally do not deserve the same standard of living as Americans. Others may point to the economic benefits they may bring, such as creating more areas of commerce, providing taxes in some cases, and doing jobs some Americans will not, but the real issue arises when an unexpected influx of migrants flood local services. Similar to how stay-at-home orders were issued in the pandemic in order to slow the spread and ease the burden on healthcare workers and facilities, a flood of immigrants can stress the areas that these migrants pass through and settle in. A small stream is sustainable, which is built into the system with legal immigration. However, a sudden influx caused by a change in policy and an optimistic outlook of migrants crossing the border results in an inevitable disaster that border states like Texas and New Mexico will have to deal with which states further from the southern border will not.

The college’s announcement is especially strange considering that states like Massachusetts do not bear the brunt of a wave of migrants flooding over the border. By incentivizing illegal immigration, Holy Cross is actively stressing border areas while claiming moral superiority without facing the consequences. This kind of posturing is not indicative of the Jesuit value of “serving the greater good” as the college claims, as it actively promotes a crisis that it will not have to deal with, all the while it claims to be helping the community by advertising that it is providing education to unauthorized immigrants.

Texas, to prove the damaging effect that an influx of immigrants can have on cities and towns, has resorted to bussing immigrants from Texas to places like DC and Martha’s Vineyard. This policy was deemed necessary because of the increase in illegal immigration under the Biden administration due to illegal immigration friendly rhetoric and policy. The main point of evidence for Biden’s weak stance on illegal immigration is his revocation of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that made migrants seeking asylum stay in Mexico while they await trial in the US. Under Biden’s tenure, southern border encounters have jumped from 1,473,691 in 2021 to 1,997,769 in 2022 according to the US Custom and Border Protection’s website.

Because of the unauthorized immigrants bussed to DC, the mayor, Democrat Muriel Bowser, declared a public emergency, acknowledging the effect an influx of migrants can have on an area’s resources. With this, she also acknowledged that the federal response has been lacking in terms of handling traffic on the border. Washington, DC, has long considered itself a sanctuary city, declaring that unauthorized immigrants are welcome and are free from the hands of immigration enforcement there. It is difficult not to point out the irony that a city so welcoming of unauthorized immigrants declares a state of emergency for when they arrive.

Now, it must be acknowledged that many of the unauthorized immigrants that would be taking advantage of the Schuler Access Initiative most likely were brought here as children and grew up in the United States, and while they might not have citizenship in the United States, they are citizens somewhere, and should therefore be treated like international students. In turn, they should still receive the same amount of need-based aid that others at Holy Cross are afforded. The problem comes when the college directly allocates and advertises funds for unauthorized immigrants. The people deserve the aid, but the way in which Holy Cross and the Schuler Foundation is going about it only serves to virtue single rather than truly help the issue.

An emphasis of President Rougeau’s announcement was that is aligns with the college’s Jesuit values, yet this move only stands to prove to the community its Jesuit values, advertising it as the Jesuit thing to do, when, if something is the Jesuit thing to do, it would need no declaration of being so, as it would be recognized on its individual merits. By advertising that the college, among others, are giving out aid to unauthorized immigrants, it only stands to worsen the migrant crisis, however slight the effects might be. If Holy Cross would like to do its part to ease the migrant crisis, then it should instead look for students abroad in Central and South America to sponsor. Instead, the college would rather boast about its Jesuit values, while 2,000 miles away, other states are forced to deal with their decisions.

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.