Search Results

If you go to Google and type “heinous crimes up with young people,” you’ll see over 2 billion results. It’s a stark reminder that the alarming trend of young people committing gruesome acts isn’t a new phenomenon, but the sheer proliferation and frequency of these acts most certainly is. Our society is grappling with a disconcerting reality — a reality born out of the convergence of various factors. From the messages embedded in our music to the desensitizing violence prevalent in our culture, and even the erosion of moral and ethical values, each contributes to the emergence of a more violent society. It’s a society where individuals no longer temper their darkest impulses, and regrettably, it’s our youth who often find themselves on the frontline, manifesting behaviors at an unacceptable rate. This is a phenomenon that should deeply trouble us all and lead us to pause in concern for the direction in which our society is headed. These young individuals, driven by a cocktail of influences, often react impulsively or, in the gravest of cases, meticulously plan calculated crimes that result in the loss of innocent lives. We’ve witnessed stories like that of Mackenzie Shirilla, a name etched into the annals of a society grappling with the aftermath of senseless violence. Shirilla was recently found guilty of the murder of her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and her friend, Davion Flanagan. Their tragic deaths underscore the gravity of the situation we’re facing — a situation where young people are becoming entangled in webs of aggression and desperation. In Shirilla’s case, she purposely sped up her car to 100 mph and drove straight into a wall, instantly killing her boyfriend and friend. The breakdown of morality in our society is contributing to this disturbing trend. Traditional values that once served as guiding principles seem to be waning, leaving a moral vacuum in which right and wrong are increasingly ambiguous. The erosion of moral foundations means that young people are less equipped to distinguish between ethical choices and destructive actions. The deterioration of ethics further compounds the issue. Ethical conduct is the cornerstone of a civilized society, fostering a sense of responsibility and accountability. Yet, as we witness these disturbing trends among our youth, it becomes evident that the concept of ethics is losing its grip. The pursuit of personal gain, even at the expense of others, has become alarmingly normalized. As we reflect on these developments, the implications for our future are profoundly concerning. A society that permits the erosion of morality and ethics in its younger generation is sowing the seeds of its own demise. The actions of today’s youth foreshadow the trajectory of tomorrow’s adults. If we fail to address these concerning trends, we risk a future marked by increased violence, social fragmentation and a dearth of empathy. It’s time for us to confront these unsettling truths and take meaningful action. By reemphasizing morality and ethics in our families, communities and institutions, we can recalibrate the moral compass of our youth. This requires an unwavering commitment to fostering values that prioritize human dignity, compassion and respect for one another. Only through concerted efforts to restore these foundational principles can we hope to guide our society toward a more harmonious and promising future. This alarming trend of young people exhibiting violence and aggression should serve as an urgent wake-up call for our educational institutions. We must prioritize emotional education alongside academic excellence. By equipping our youth with the tools to manage their emotions, resolve conflicts constructively and communicate effectively, we can help curb the escalation of anger and violence. It’s imperative that our schools become places not only of intellectual growth but also of emotional well-being and character development. The rising wave of heinous acts committed by young people underscores the pressing need for a comprehensive societal response. We must address the erosion of morality and ethics, and we must prioritize emotional education within our education system. This is a challenge that requires the collective effort of families, communities, educators and cultural influencers. By refocusing on our shared values, investing in the emotional well-being of our youth and fostering a renewed sense of empathy, we can shape a society that rejects violence and paves the way for a brighter and more harmonious future. Armstrong Williams is a conservative columnist and nationally syndicated radio host.

America's cities have always been the melting pots of change and progress. Historically, they have welcomed migrants and refugees with open arms, offering them a chance at the American dream. However, as recent events have unfolded, there's a palpable tension in some of the country's most liberal cities caused by the very policies that made them bastions of liberal ideals. As waves of migrants seek shelter within their jurisdictions, these cities grapple with the growing disparity between their welcoming rhetoric and the gritty realities on the ground. Massachusetts, for instance, has become a poignant emblem of this dilemma. Despite its deep-rooted ethos of openness and acceptance, the state has been pushed to its limits; the welcoming rhetoric and policy of the state has caused its governor, Maura Healey, to declare a state of emergency. With over 20,000 people in the state shelter system and a monthly expenditure soaring to $45 million, the crisis is reaching levels that the state was grossly unprepared for. New York City, another liberal stronghold, echoes Massachusetts' challenges, with their mayor, Eric Adams, calling for a state of emergency and additional federal funds. These are no longer just requests for these embattled "sanctuaries"; they have become necessities. But what draws so many to states like Massachusetts and New York? The answer lies in the state's liberal policies. As Healey remarked in her appeal to the Department of Homeland Security, Massachusetts has always been a "beacon to those in need." This compassionate stance undoubtedly become its Achilles' heel. Its policies, aimed at providing a safe haven for migrants, have unintentionally made it a magnet for an overwhelming influx of migrants. This crisis brings to the fore two uncomfortable realities: Liberal cities were unprepared for the ramifications of their policies, and the consequences of their actions may lead to their own party's undoing. Reading through the news, combing through social media and speaking to people on the ground, it is clear that the phrase "sanctuary city" is likely at its death. It was easy for governors and mayors of liberal states and cities to decry states like Texas for their perceived inhumanity for refusing to allow more migrants to stay in their towns and for advocating for closed borders. But now that the problem is in their backyard, they see the grave issues that it can pose in their own communities. They see the unfairness in treatment compared to their states' own needs. This current situation should offer a moment of reflection for these cities and for the people who support the policies that have destroyed them. It is a stark reminder that we can't help everyone, and if we're going to try, we should do it the right way. Though, the right way is not always the compassionate way. Unfortunately for Democrats, they are now discovering that their approach of compassion through open borders and free services may be less humane than the alternative. When newcomers receive treatment far superior to that of existing citizens, it raises a painful question: Why are so many in dire circumstances within our borders ignored? Is it because they are Americans, like me? These disparities are becoming more apparent, and the generous conditions provided to migrants may only serve to encourage more to come into the United States. Friends and family hear of the services provided and are drawn to make the journey. No doubt the countries that these migrants come from face the gambit of issues that may make them eligible for asylum — conflict, persecution, death. Yet, instead of offering aid to their countries to encourage them to stay where they are, the United States seems content to accept the citizens of those countries. The discrepancy in aid distribution is striking. The United States has sent $113 billion to Ukraine, a distant country that has little connection to our own and is relatively stable in many of its regions. In contrast, we've failed to provide even a fraction of this aid to the countries that migrants are coming from. While I don't believe that the United States should act as a charity to every poor and conflict-ridden nation, if we're going to spend the money anyway, we should at least put it to a use that will actually have a positive and clear impact on our own country. The unfolding situation in liberal cities like Boston and New York City reflects a broader national challenge. It represents a tug of war between ideals and harsh realities. Perhaps these cities will learn from their experiences, perhaps they won't. Regardless of the outcome, the current conditions are undoubtedly opening the eyes of Democrats to the true consequences of their party's policies. More than ever, this situation exposes the lies that the Democratic elites tell their supporters. Armstrong Williams is found at www.creators.com.

A front-page story on Aug. 21 in The Washington Post sounds a false alarm: "American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why," by Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse. The analysis is incoherent, betrays constitutional ignorance and misunderstands the purpose of government — not majority rule but justice secured through checks and balances and separation of powers, enabling every person an opportunity to march to their own drummer, fearless of domestic predation or foreign aggression. The glory of the United States is liberty, not a Leviathan administrative state that dulls ambition and protects corporate behemoths by agency regulations navigable only by $2,000-per-hour elite lawyers. The United States, of course, is not perfect. Mankind is made of crooked timber. But it is adorned with the optimal form of government to secure justice than any other on the face of the earth. Just ask the millions of immigrants yearly who risk life and limb to enter the United States in search of opportunity and freedom. The soundtrack of The Washington Post's fault-finding is the Constitution's checks on majority rule. Why these checks should be scorned is difficult to apprehend. Thomas Jefferson observed, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." James Madison, father of the Constitution, observed in Federalist 55, "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson added in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." In any event, The Washington Post's exaltation of majority rule is insincere. It first castigates the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court for not echoing the majority. But then excoriates state legislatures that do! It deplores the fact that in numerous states, the "dominant party has been able to move aggressively to enact its governing priorities." Janus-faced, thy name is The Washington Post. The newspaper deplores the supermajority required to amend the Constitution to foster stability (two-thirds majorities in the House and three-fourths of the state legislatures). Is The Washington Post afflicted with amnesia? Has it forgotten the 18-year-old voting rights amendment (26th Amendment) ratified on July 1, 1971, within four months of its submission? Reporters Balz and Morse applaud the easy changeability of state constitutions: "Over the history of the country, state constitutions have been amended thousands of times." But unlike the United States Constitution, no state constitution has served as a template for constitutions fashioned by foreign countries. No state constitution has earned the accolade the U.S. Constitution elicited from British icon and statesman Lord Gladstone: "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." Contrary to The Washington Post, the Constitution is our deliverance from the nation's afflictions. Its abandonment has begotten our cosseted multitrillion-dollar military-industrial warfare state that has spiked the national debt past a crushing $32 trillion pursuing fool's errands in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Ukraine. It has begotten a surveillance state demolishing the Fourth Amendment right to be let alone from government snooping absent probable cause that crime is afoot. It has begotten a cycloptic administrative state that daily pours forth regulations to stifle individual ingenuity and to shield corporate giants from competition. Congress routinely delegates limitless legislative powers to the president and executive agencies where checks and balances are nonexistent. Executive agencies promulgate an average of 3,000 to 4,500 legislative rules annually — delegation run riot. Congress persists in limitless giveaways of its legislative power to escape responsibility for policies that might provoke a primary challenge. A Congress member's heaven is an uncontested election indistinguishable from China or Russia. The Constitution will be restored only if the American people vote out of office its countless defectors who currently occupy the corridors of power. A beginning would be the restoration of civics as the centerpiece of public education. Armstrong Williams is found at www.creators.com.

In the vast tapestry of American education, certain states stand out with benchmarks that others can only aspire to reach. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, it’s worth pausing to reflect on what these trailblazing states are doing right. Their success stories aren’t just individual achievements; they offer a collective roadmap for the nation. Massachusetts, often dubbed an “educational powerhouse,” consistently tops national assessments. But what’s their secret sauce? For starters, the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks don’t just set standards; they aim for the stars. The state believes in challenging its students and pushing them to reach their zenith. But it’s not just about the students: Behind every successful student is an empowered teacher. By investing heavily in professional development, Massachusetts ensures that its educators are equipped to guide their charges. And let’s not forget the youngest ones. Massachusetts has been a vocal advocate for early childhood education, pouring resources into pre-K programs. When we talk about education, we cannot ignore equity, and Minnesota stands as a testament to this. The state has a clear strategy: direct resources where they’re needed the most. Schools with a higher concentration of underprivileged students aren’t left in the lurch. And it’s not just about funding. Minnesota celebrates its diversity, enriching its curriculum with culturally relevant content. It’s a state that believes in reflecting the broad spectrum of its student population in its lessons. New Jersey’s vision for education is holistic. It’s not just about academics — it’s also about creating well-rounded individuals. The state’s funding model is a master class in fairness. Whether a school is in an affluent suburb or a challenging neighborhood, New Jersey ensures it has what it needs. Academic achievements are celebrated, but the state’s policymakers understand that emotional well-being of students is equally crucial. Robust mental health programs are a staple in New Jersey schools. In the digital age, any discourse on education is incomplete without mentioning technology. Washington has been a frontrunner in this domain. The state’s curriculum is future-ready, designed for the tech-savvy student. But what about the teachers? Washington ensures they’re not left behind. Comprehensive training programs familiarize educators with the latest tech and show how they can use it to enhance their teaching. The achievements of these four states are commendable. But they’re more than just success stories; they’re a clarion call to other states. The message is clear: Every child, no matter where they’re from, deserves the best education we can provide. Emulating these trailblazers can bridge educational disparities, drive economic progress, and foster a more enlightened society. Students autograph a Green Monster scoreboard plate during the Fenway Park Learning Lab Kick-Off on May 4, 2023 in Boston. Massachusetts is one of four states that emphasize excellence in education.Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox/Getty Images It’s essential to understand that the impact of a strong education system goes beyond the confines of the classroom. States that prioritize education see results in various facets of society. For example, studies show there’s a direct correlation between access to a quality education and reduced crime rates. People who are equipped with knowledge and skills are more likely to find gainful employment and less likely to engage in unlawful activities. Moreover, education fosters critical thinking, creating a populace that’s not just employable but also more informed, discerning and resistant to misinformation. In an era where fake news is rampant, the importance of this cannot be understated. In the global arena, the U.S. competes against countries that invest heavily in education because they understand its long-term benefits. Finland and Singapore, for example, with their innovative teaching methodologies and emphasis on holistic education, are setting standards. For the U.S. to maintain its position as a global leader, it’s imperative to look inward, at states such as Massachusetts and Washington, and outward, to learn from international best practices. The fusion of domestic success stories with global insights can create a world-class education system. Four states have charted a path in America and the rest of the nation should take note and embark on the journey toward educational excellence. Our children deserve nothing but the best. Armstrong Williams is owner and manager of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the Year.

Suppose the president of the United States voices concern over media concentration. The president promises to consider antitrust suits to break up newspaper monopolies and retroactive legislation prohibiting newspapers from owning radio or television stations, including the remedy of divestment. Suppose The Washington Post or The New York Times, intimidated by the president's sword of Damocles, and to appease the U.S. government, daily shared their contemplated published letters to the editor, op-eds, and indeed their entire newspapers for vetting by the White House or executive departments or agencies, to delete viewpoints or assertions that the government decreed adulterated the cognitive infrastructure of the American people with bad ideas. Is there any doubt that the described informal viewpoint censorship would violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech and of a free press? The U.S. Supreme Court condemned a comparable scheme of informal government censorship in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963). There, the Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth provided booksellers with a list of prohibited books that should be withdrawn from circulation with an implied threat of prosecution if they were not. The Court held the Commission's de facto censorship of books with no trial to adjudicate whether they were protected by the First Amendment was unconstitutional. Now fast forward to the digital age and the rise of social media behemoths. President Joe Biden openly flirts with anti-monopoly suits against Facebook, Google and the usual suspects. The president also voices support for amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to diminish the legal safe harbor social media companies enjoy from publishing the postings of third parties. Additionally, the White House and a cavalcade of executive branch agencies snarl in high octaves against social media for insufficient content monitoring and removal of postings or users who contradict the government's orthodoxies about COVID-19, election integrity and the cognitive infrastructure of the American people that the government finds appealing, taking George Orwell's "1984" to a new level. The social media companies approached included Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok and other online platforms. In response, all targeted social media platforms meet or otherwise communicate daily with putative Platonic Guardians housed in the executive branch to delete disfavored posts or users. The overwhelming majority are conservative. The social media platforms become virtual stenographers of the Biden administration's version of truth. A free marketplace of ideas is annihilated. What you have read is not fiction. It is a summary of the decision of U.S. Judge of the Western District of Louisiana Terry A. Doughty on July 4, 2023, in State of Missouri, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, et al. The Court chronicled in 100 pages of factual findings industrial-scale suppression on social media of content or users the Biden administration found were politically obnoxious, a synonym for conservative dissent or dissenters. Biden engaged in the broadest violation of free speech in history, far worse than the Index of Forbidden Books or book burning. Judge Doughty preliminarily held the censorship unconstitutional. The Biden administration's informal censorship with ulterior partisan political motives is deplorable. But it is symptomatic of a disease inescapable with our leviathan regulatory state endowed with limitless, unreviewable, discretionary power financially cripple or boost any substantial business in the nation. Think of the vast expanse of alphabet agencies: the FTC, the FCC, the FED, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the SEC, the CPSC, the IRS, the FAA, the EPA, OFAC, CFPB, the FDA, the procurement arms of the Pentagon. They need to stay on the good side of the U.S. government to avoid financial strangulation. The FDA screens drugs for safety and effectiveness before marketing can begin. The median cost of conducting the necessary clinical trials to satisfy the safety and effectiveness threshold average is approximately $20 million. An FDA denial is virtually unreviewable in court under the Administrative Procedure Act. No drug company — even Pfizer — would dare risk awakening the ire of its overseers by criticizing any FDA policy or the White House. In other words, the mere existence of the FDA endowed with formidable regulatory discretion suppresses the free speech of the regulated. A host of other regulated industries are similarly silenced by the mere existence of their regulators: financial institutions, insurance, oil and gas, motor vehicles, aircraft, defense contractors, and every business that may confront a tax issue or a need to sell securities. In sum, if we wish free speech to flourish, the regulatory state must be vastly scaled back. This is an issue upon which both liberals and conservatives should agree. To crucify free speech on a cross of administrative regulation is a Faustian bargain that should not be entertained. Armstrong Williams is a political commentator, author, entrepreneur and founder of Howard Strirk Holdings, which creates multifarious content relative to politics, entertainment and topics of social and cultural relevance. The opinions are the writer’s.

Jess Hilarious, a well-known comedian and personality, has recently created quite a stir in the world of social media. She dared to voice her opinion on a trending video where a transgender woman claimed that “womanhood” and menstruation were not exclusive to biological women. Jess responded with the simple truth that only biological women can menstruate and bear children, and quite rightly so! Let’s not tiptoe around the facts. Biological men, or in layman’s terms, individuals born with male genitalia, can never and will never have the capacity to give birth to children or menstruate. It’s not an opinion or a debate but a cold, hard fact of biology. We need to face reality, instead of diving deeper into an abyss of unscientific thinking. What is truly confounding is the muddled state of the discourse surrounding women’s identity. Women, throughout history, have fought countless battles for recognition and rights. And now, we’re embroiled in a debate questioning the very definition of what constitutes a woman. Have we suddenly discarded centuries of biological understanding and scientific knowledge in favor of a more subjective, individualistic interpretation? What’s the future holding for us, then? Should we expect more such redefinitions? If an individual identifies as another race, alters their skin color and claims they’re “transracial,” will we accept it without question? Suppose someone identifies as wealthy without having a single dime in their bank account — are we to consider them “transwealthy”? And where does this end? If a person starts identifying as a dog, a cat or any other creature, will we be required to play along and call them “transanimal”? The fundamental issue is this: The intensity of your feelings, however genuine they may be, cannot change reality. Consider this hypothetical scenario: A century from now, an archeologist excavates the skeletal remains of a transgender woman. Scientific analysis, independent of any subjective biases, would incontrovertibly reveal the skeleton to belong to a biological man. Yet, in our current culture, we’re asked to suspend our disbelief and affirm that a person who identifies as a woman is, indeed, a woman. Are we not treading on treacherous ground? The situation is undoubtedly confusing, even frustrating. However, it’s vital to maintain perspective and not let absurdity take root. A biological man, regardless of the quantities of estrogen he consumes, regardless of the breast or buttock implants he acquires, regardless of wigs, fake eyelashes, name changes or women’s clothes, will never be a biological woman. Is that too difficult to grasp? Or has society become so immersed in this collective delusion that we’ve forgotten the simplest of truths? We need to pause, step back and scrutinize the path we’re treading. Do we want a world governed by feelings over facts, where reality can be reshaped according to individual whims and wishes? It’s time to return to sanity. It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to biological realities and reject the sociocultural illusions that threaten to subvert them. Let us not blur those lines for the sake of momentary societal trends. Being a woman is not merely a matter of identification but a concrete, biological reality that we need to acknowledge and uphold. The idea that our biological identities can be overwritten by personal feelings sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the empirical facts of our existence, breeding confusion and potentially harming societal progress in the long run. It’s imperative that we maintain balance in our approach to this discussion. We should stand firm and remain grounded in biological realities. It’s about recognizing while everyone has the right to identify as they wish, there are some truths that simply cannot be altered. We need to draw the line between affirming one’s identity and denying biological facts, lest we risk veering into a realm where anything and everything is subject to personal interpretation and feelings. We must face the challenge head-on, with a robust commitment to truth and reason. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

In the hushed corners of our society, a sinister industry flourishes, largely hidden and unspoken of. It's an issue so shocking and perplexing that people tend to ignore it when brought to light. This is the pandemic of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking. One might presume that in a civilized, developed nation like the United States, such a crime would be promptly detected, prosecuted, and eradicated. Yet, this is far from the truth. Sex trafficking thrives within our borders, and its true extent remains largely unknown. Prosecutors seldom uncover the crimes of traffickers, and sometimes, alarmingly, they choose to overlook them. Consider the notorious case of Jeffrey Epstein. Despite a substantial federal investigation revealing enough evidence to out him behind bars for several lifetimes, Epstein was barely punished. Instead of dismantling a major human sex trafficking network which would have likely taken down numerous high profile celebrities and politicians, Epstein received a minor penalty, serving only 13 months in county jail, with the privilege of leaving for work six days a week. In the United States, nearly 17,000 people are trafficked annually. And that’s all we know of. Estimates from the Department of Health and Human Services suggest this number could range from 240,000 to 325,000. Each person trafficked represents a terrified, captive individual forced into a life of exploitation. They are sold from one person to another; their tales are each unique, compelling, and tragic. Despite the harsh reality of human trafficking, why does it garner so little attention? Why is it that when a film like "The Sound Of Freedom" is released to spotlight human trafficking, it's criticized as extremist and associated with QAnon? Why did the California Assembly reject a bill to increase penalties for human traffickers without any media backlash? Why do we often focus on less impactful issues? The real question is, who is funding these campaigns to deride people who attempt to expose human traffickers? It is tragically easy to find stories of human trafficking victims online. Here’s a story you’ve probably never heard of. A woman who was a victim of sex trafficking wrote an opinion piece about her harrowing experience in the Orlando Sentinel under the pseudonym Maria. Maria dealt with the terrifying Hurricane Dorian which left her and her children homeless. Amidst the turmoil, she decided to send her children to live with their father's family, while she sought refuge in a shelter. Soon after, she was approached by a man promising work and a new life. Tragically, this man turned out to be her trafficker. He lured her with false promises of a job, a home, and the chance to reunite with her children. She realized something was wrong upon arrival at a dilapidated house, far from the sunny Florida cottage she was promised. Thirteen people were crammed into this tiny space, working day and night for a meager wage that barely met their basic needs, let alone providing an escape. She was trafficked in plain sight, working as a maid at a high-end Florida resort and on the cleaning crew of a major theme park, all under the guise of a staffing agency run by her captors. Her ordeal only ended when law enforcement raided her workplace. Children, due to their innocence and naivety, are particularly vulnerable too. Traffickers may lure them with gifts, friendship, or attention, gradually grooming them to trust and depend on their abuser. In other cases, children may be sold or coerced into trafficking by family members or acquaintances. Sex trafficking is a multi-billion dollar industry, fueled by demand and facilitated by a lack of stringent enforcement and societal indifference. It thrives in the shadows, preying on the vulnerabilities of those least able to defend themselves. It's a market where innocence is bought and sold, and where childhoods are stolen. This is not merely a problem; it's a crisis of our humanity. It's a stain on our collective conscience, a stark reminder of the depths of human depravity. We must shatter the silence that surrounds sex trafficking. We must educate ourselves and our communities about the signs of trafficking and the ways in which we can help combat it. We must support survivors and advocate for stronger laws and stricter enforcement. The fight against sex trafficking is a fight for the soul of our society. It's a battle against the commodification of human beings, the exploitation of innocence, and the very idea that any person can be reduced to an object for sale. In the face of this grave injustice, we must rise as a united front. The fight against sex trafficking is a fight for the very essence of human dignity and freedom. It is a fight that calls for our courage, our compassion, and our unwavering commitment. We must stand firm, stand strong, and stand together, vowing to illuminate the shadows where this trade thrives, to shatter the silence that allows it to persist. For every woman, for every child, for every life scarred by this horrific crime, we must pledge to turn our outrage into action, our despair into hope. The time to end the silent pandemic of sex trafficking is not tomorrow, not someday, but now. ___ Mr. Williams is Manager / Sole Owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year.

For 247 years, America has consistently demonstrated itself to be the last bastion of freedom and hope on this planet. The Constitution, the foundation of our nation, has proven to be steadfast and unyielding, irrespective of the individuals in power or the ever-evolving identity of its people. As we advance into the 21st century, we face pressing concerns that our country may be diminishing in power, global status and ethical integrity. Yet even in the face of these challenges, I firmly believe that the resilience and enduring strength of America will propel us deeper into the future. The last decade has been one of the most divisive periods in our history, with the nation appearing split right down the middle ideologically. An atmosphere of fear has prevented people from expressing their viewpoints. Strikingly, the minority views, those fringe ideologies on both the left and right, have begun to dominate our discourse. Rarely in American history have we seen a situation where the majority has become silent and the minority has seized control. After all, these minority viewpoints remain in the minority typically because they are either too extreme or too unproven to achieve widespread acceptance. Yet these views have begun to be accepted as undisputed truths and have even been enshrined in the constitutions of many states, largely because people are too apprehensive to speak up and voice their disagreement. America also is witnessing a decline in its leadership, which appears to have surrendered to the influence of large-scale financing, its own parties’ ideologies and loud interest groups. It’s as though they’ve drastically altered their ideological stances, leaning farther left or right, simply to placate a minority of persistent ideologues. This trend has led to the politicization of America’s most crucial agencies, such as the Department of Justice and many others. These agencies are often headed by unelected officials who respond more to their party’s demands rather than the broader interests of the American people. Internationally, it seems as though our leaders have lost sight of what we should be advocating for and who our real adversaries should be. They have unequivocally retreated from their commitment to uphold human rights across the globe, turning a blind eye to egregious violations such as those in China. There, hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims are confined in what can only be described as concentration camps and subjected to indiscriminate slaughter. Our leaders maintain a diplomatic silence on this matter, seemingly to safeguard our commercial interests with China. Simultaneously, the U.S. has funneled an enormous amount of resources into conflicts with far less at stake. Globally, it appears the guiding principles of U.S. policy have become alarmingly malleable to suit the needs of its leaders. We also are facing a crisis in education. The very institutions designed to cultivate the leaders and responsible citizens of tomorrow seem to have lost sight of their original purpose. Private interests and unscrupulous individuals have seized leadership roles in our schools, misappropriating taxpayer dollars and contributing to falling literacy and graduation rates. This situation is a harbinger of disaster with potentially far-reaching consequences if not promptly addressed. Undoubtedly, America faces a multitude of challenges. Yet, two constants remain — our Constitution and our people. There will always be noble individuals ready to champion what’s right, even if it means risking grave consequences. Our nation was built by those who risked their lives and safety not merely to preserve America but to give it independence when the environment was significantly more hostile and the stakes were much higher. The bedrock of America was not formed by those who passively awaited a brighter future. Despite the hurdles we encounter, we are certain to surmount them. Every generation will continue to have people akin to our colonial soldiers who risked and gave their lives in the battle for independence against the British, catalyzing the birth of our nation. These individuals will mend our societal rifts, rise as our leaders, and find solutions for the crises in our education system and international policies. As we chart the trajectory for the next 247 years, we must not proceed blindly. We have to draw lessons from our past and acknowledge our present. We must confront the immediate challenges before us and seize any forthcoming opportunities for positive transformation. We can achieve all this while simultaneously upholding our fundamental principles of liberty and justice for all, just as our founders did 247 years ago.

In the course of a single week, two tragedies unfolded, both exposing the stark, divergent responses by our media and governments based on the affected demographics and the narratives they spin. Intriguingly, both tragedies involved the ocean and rescue attempts, starkly underlining our inconsistent approaches to different crises. One tragedy revolved around the implosion and subsequent deaths of five individuals who had invested $250,000 each for an underwater journey to explore the Titanic’s ruins. The other was a catastrophe at sea off the coast of Greece, resulting in the tragic assumed loss of nearly 700 migrants in pursuit of better lives overseas. Now, take a guess, which incident garnered more media attention? If your instinct was to go for the event that claimed up to 700 lives, you would be dead wrong. On June 13, a distress signal from a migrant vessel carrying up to 750 individuals was first brought to light by Italian activist Nawal Soufi, prompting a range of rescue efforts from different parties throughout the day. Nonetheless, differing narratives surfaced concerning the vessel’s readiness to receive aid and its overall condition. Despite obtaining supplies from the Maltese-flagged tanker Lucky Sailor and from Greek authorities, the boat’s occupants reportedly declined any further assistance, staying their course. Adding to the confusion, Soufi and Greek parliament member Kriton Arsenis alleged that the Greek coast guard attempted to tug the boat toward Italian waters, a claim vehemently denied by Greek officials. Ultimately, the boat succumbed and capsized during the early hours of June 14, with further conflicting stories on whether it was a result of overcrowding and engine malfunction, or if it was because they were being tugged by a Greek coast guard. Tragically, of the estimated 750 souls onboard, 104 have survived. On June 18, an underwater submersible designed by OceanGate to plunge nearly 13,000 feet below sea level failed to reemerge as planned. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, barring any immediate catastrophic incident that would have already claimed the lives of the passengers, the vessel had approximately 96 hours of oxygen remaining. The ensuing rescue operation was nothing short of colossal, featuring multiple aircraft conducting continuous radar sweeps of the surface and complex remote vehicles tasked with scouring the Titanic’s wreckage. The world was on edge, watching and waiting in anticipation, fervently hoping for the survival of the submersible’s passengers. Regrettably, their hopes were in vain. The rescue efforts yielded no positive results. As it turns out, the reason why it never surfaced was because the submersible underwent a devastating implosion that, quicker than the passengers’ brains could register the event, killed all five people onboard. On June 24, I arrived in Greece to venture to its various islands on a vessel with many close colleagues and friends on board. Witnessing what transpired over the past weeks has made everyone here wonder: What would have transpired if those migrants on the capsized boat had been a handful of Americans enjoying a yachting expedition instead? What if they were us? So, why the disparity in media coverage and rescue attempts? To answer that, we must first understand what we value in a story. Do we look for a compelling, easily digestible narrative, or a complex web of differing accounts and foregone conclusions? Unquestionably, the OceanGate incident provides an enthralling and absorbing tale. It creates a sense of urgency, akin to a countdown in a show like “24,” reminding us that the story and the fate of those involved is unfolding in real time, as we carry on with our daily routines. Moreover, it’s a simple story — uncluttered and easily digestible. Five people are trapped in a submersible at the bottom of the ocean with just 96 hours of oxygen remaining. It’s as straightforward as that. In contrast, the migrant story is considerably more intricate, teeming with conflicting accounts of the events, critical policy considerations, numerous parties involved, a story that is already at its end, and overall, a narrative that requires a significant investment of time to truly comprehend. Despite the relative captivation of the OceanGate story compared to the migrant incident, we must still question why the actual rescue responses were so dramatically different. Yes, different government entities were involved, yet I fervently believe that authorities would have acted differently had the occupants of the vessel been different. Reading the account of what happened when Greek authorities initially made contact with the migrant boat, it remains baffling that, given the apparent overcrowding of the vessel, and the Greek authorities’ own admission that they believed the boat was on the verge of capsizing due to overcrowding, they still allowed it to continue on its perilous journey. I have witnessed a consistent sentiment of outrage echoed from its people over the media and Greek coast guard’s handling of the tragedy. There is an outpouring of anger, a clamor for answers. The inherent value and equality of every single life is a principle that should never be overshadowed or forgotten. Yet, it seems that both our governments and the media have shamefully lost sight of this vital tenet; they value certain people over others, and captivating stories over what really matters. Armstrong Williams’ column is syndicated by Creators.

January 4, 2024 | www.creators.com The leisurely pace of the new year gives birth to reflection. We celebrate the new year, but from time immemorial each new year proves the prescience of Ecclesiastes, that there is nothing new under the sun. Then why do the celebrations endure? Because hope springs eternal. Happiness is commonly the temporary suspension of disbelief. Dreams are our nectar and ambrosia. What do ordinary Americans want? They do not want a free lunch. That leaves an empty soul lacking in self-esteem. You can't be proud of being born with a silver spoon. The more challenging the struggle, the more euphoric the triumph. Ordinary Americans want a fair opportunity to develop their faculties and pursue their ambitions unhandicapped by the accident of birth. Character and accomplishments are all that should count. President Abraham Lincoln instructed that the leading object of government was "to elevate the condition of men — to lift artificial weights from all shoulders — to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all — to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." Ordinary Americans want respect, if not a 21-gun salute. Every man or woman should be treated like a king or queen, but no one wears a crown. Ordinary Americans want an equal playing field. A day's work for a day's pay. They do not want corporate welfare fueled by handsome campaign contributions and $2,000 per-hour lobbyists. They want an evenhanded tax system that does not enable the super-rich to pay less than the hardworking wage earners through tax dodges only they can pay for and exploit. Ordinary Americans want to march to their own drummers free from domestic predation. That means holding police accountable to the law to the same extent citizens are. No dual standard of justice. We do not permit thieves to investigate the crimes of other thieves. The conflict of interest is obvious. Similarly, police should not investigate the crimes of their colleagues. Independent investigators are needed. Ordinary Americans want investigative and prosecutorial resources targeted at identifying and punishing the handful of recidivists that commit most of the crimes, not for retribution but for self-defense and incapacitation. The most vulnerable are the primary victims of criminality. "Defund the police" is blind to this tragic fact. Ordinary Americans want a national security policy of invincible self-defense. They do not want a global, gold-plated military presence undertaking fool's errands to summon utopia into being by force of arms to enrich the multitrillion-dollar military-industrial-security complex under the counterfeit banner of patriotism. We should spare no dime in self-defense but refuse to spend one cent for the empire. Our greatest and most enlightened influence abroad is the influence of example, which costs nothing. Ordinary Americans want an education in critical thinking and a mastery of reading, writing and speaking. They do not want indoctrination or fixations on sexual orientation or sex. The latter are the responsibilities of parents. It is the business of schools to hone cerebral faculties, not to promote hormonal gratifications. The armored knight needs to be admired less and the thinker needs to be admired more. Without thinkers, armored knights have nothing to fight for. Ordinary Americans want leaders who are selfless and exhibit every benevolent instinct of the human heart. They do not want professional, narcissistic politicians with ulterior motives whose sole mission in life is to acquire and maintain power for its own sake — not for any public good. Our political life has decayed. Think not only of the corruption of former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) and incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Additionally, we now commonly encounter members of Congress clueless that the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend provides for three branches of government and separation of powers. Congress has been reduced to no more than sound and fury signifying nothing, while the executive branch has grown to a giant oak sporting the limitless power of a Caesar. They include dragnet, warrantless surveillance and playing prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner to kill any person on the planet based on secret suspicion that the target might become a national security threat — an alarming doctrine of anticipatory self-defense to exterminate preembryonic potential dangers. The government has become a lawbreaker, which invites every man to become a law unto himself. Armstrong Williams is manager/sole owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year. To find out more about him and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

January 4, 2024 | amsterdamnews.com The trend of employers increasingly not requiring college degrees, as reported by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), signals a significant shift in the job market and raises important questions about the value of a college education and the emphasis on skills and experience. Historically, a college degree was seen as a crucial step toward career advancement and financial stability. However, with the rising costs of college education and evolving job market demands, this view is being re-examined. Employers like Dell, IBM, and Bank of America are adjusting their requirements to instead reflect a broader range of backgrounds and skill sets. Despite these changes, the value of a college education remains significant, especially in fields like science and technology, where specialized training is crucial. A college degree fosters critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and a comprehensive understanding of complex subjects. These are invaluable in any professional setting. Of course, we cannot forget the fact that the actual educational value of much of what is learned in college has diminished drastically over the years, with much of college becoming more a social formality than an actual, meaningful educational endeavor. Trade schools offer a practical alternative, providing hands-on training to address real, tangible skill gaps in the economy, and should be seen as a respectable and viable option in the spectrum of post-secondary education. This evolving landscape reflects a shift in understanding what constitutes a qualified candidate. While the de-emphasis on degrees opens doors for many, it doesn’t diminish the intrinsic value of higher education. A balanced approach that values both formal education and practical skills is essential. As the job market continues to evolve, a nuanced understanding of educational and career paths is necessary. Employers are increasingly valuing skills and experiences that may not necessarily come from traditional academic routes. This shift is creating a more inclusive and diverse workforce, where individuals from various backgrounds can contribute their unique perspectives and skills. In sectors like technology, healthcare, and finance, where specialized knowledge and skills are paramount, the importance of a college education remains unchallenged. However, in many other sectors, skills, experience, and the ability to adapt and learn are becoming just as important. The rise of online courses, certification programs, and continuous learning opportunities also play a significant role in this changing landscape. They offer a flexible and often more affordable way for individuals to acquire new skills or enhance their existing ones. This trend toward lifelong learning is crucial in a world where the pace of technological and economic change is accelerating. This trend toward a more holistic view of qualifications is also a reflection of the changing nature of work itself. The gig economy, remote work, and the increasing use of technology in all aspects of work are redefining what it means to be qualified. In this context, the ability to quickly adapt, continuously learn, and collaborate effectively are becoming key determinants of success. While the trend of not requiring college degrees for certain jobs is a welcome development toward a more inclusive and diverse workforce, it doesn’t negate the value of higher education. The challenge is to create a system that supports diverse educational and career paths, and ensures that everyone has the opportunity to realize their potential. This requires a balanced approach that recognizes the value of both formal education and practical experience, and the importance of continuous learning in a rapidly evolving world.