The National Archives will be hosting a naturalization ceremony this month on December 15th featuring former first lady Melania Trump.

People experiencing gender dysphoria cannot expect gender-reassignment interventions to solve other mental health issues‚ according to a large‚ Finnish study published last month in the journal European Psychiatry. People with gender dysphoria “present with many more common psychiatric needs” than the general population‚ the study reported‚ “even when medical GR [gender-reassignment] interventions are carried out.” Based on their finding‚ the authors’ recommended “cautious assessment of the timeliness of medical GR and of other treatment needs that may be more urgent.” The register-based study reviewed records of 3‚665 people “who contacted the nationally centralized gender identity services (GIS) in Finland in 1996-2019.” Of this cohort‚ 38.4% had received either cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgery‚ or both. The study matched each person in this population with eight people of the same sex‚ age‚ and place of birth‚ resulting in a control group of 29‚292 people. The authors compared the two groups both before and after the gender-dysphoric person’s first appointment with the diagnostic team at either of the country’s two hospitals that provide gender-identity services—known as the “index date.” In survey collection‚ a random sample of 1‚000 is considered sufficient for most statistical purposes‚ but Finland’s socialized medicine system enabled the authors of this study to survey the entire population over a two-year period. (One weakness the authors admitted is that it is possible to legally change one’s sex in Finland‚ and government records only listed the legal sex‚ not the birth sex.) The authors noted a much higher risk that a person with gender dysphoria will need “specialist-level psychiatric treatment” (most often for mood disorders and anxiety) than their age-matched controls‚ and that they will receive more care after entering the system. Before the index date‚ people with gender dysphoria were 2.4 times as likely to have contact with a specialist-level psychiatrist than the control group (33.0% to 13.7%). After the index date‚ the gender-dysphoric group was 4.2 times as likely to have contact with a specialist-level psychiatrist (60.6% to 14.5%). People with gender dysphoria were 3.2 times more likely to have received inpatient psychiatric treatment before the index date (11.7% to 3.6%) and 4.0 times more likely after the index date (10.7% to 2.7%). The authors recorded other noteworthy observations about the likelihood of people with gender dysphoria to need specialist-level psychiatric treatment. Nearly three times as many people with gender dysphoria did not proceed to gender-reassignment procedures if they had obtained serious psychiatric treatment prior to their first appointment with gender-identity services. The proportion of people needing serious psychiatric treatment increased more (from 15.3% to 52.9%) among people with gender dysphoria who received cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgeries than among those who did not (from 47.0% to 66.7%). Among people with gender dysphoria‚ fully half of those who received gender-reassignment interventions later obtained serious psychiatric treatment‚ although they were slightly less likely to do so than those who did not receive gender-reassignment interventions. Among people who obtained serious psychiatric treatment before engaging gender-identity services‚ 70% to 80% of them still needed psychiatric treatment afterward‚ regardless of whether or not they actually received cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgeries. Zooming out for a broader comparison‚ the authors summarized‚ “both those GD [gender-dysphoria] patients who had proceeded to medical GR [gender reassignment] and those who had not were more likely to need psychiatric treatment after the index date than were the controls.” How much more likely? That depended (somewhat) on the other variables included in the model. In the most complex model‚ the authors controlled for year of birth‚ legal sex‚ when patients first sought treatment for gender dysphoria‚ and whether they had previously received serious psychiatric treatment. According to this model‚ people with gender dysphoria were 3.8 or 3.9 times more likely than the control group to need serious psychiatric treatment. Furthermore‚ they “had an equal risk for later psychiatric treatment‚” regardless of whether or not they had received gender-reassignment procedures. However‚ those who had previously received serious psychiatric treatment before the index date were still 3.1 times more likely to need it afterward‚ too. The authors recognized that psychiatric issues were on the rise among the general population‚ and this is reflected in the data (for instance‚ a person born in a given year was 3%‚ or 1.03 times‚ more likely to need serious psychiatric treatment than someone born in the prior year). “The emergence of the widely recognized crisis in mental health among adolescents and young adults throughout the Western world” was “largely associated with the increasing use of social media‚” they noted. “Social media influences may also result in adolescent and emerging adult females—who present particularly frequently with identity confusion—seeking for a solution to their distress through GR [gender reassignment].” The unique contribution of their study‚ the authors believed‚ was in identifying a link between mental health issues and gender dysphoria. “As far as we know‚ the increase over time in psychiatric [co-]morbidity among those seeking GR [gender reassignment] has not previously been presented‚” they wrote. The report’s conclusion also undermines a commonly expressed narrative in U.S. debates over gender-transition procedures for minors‚ who lack the power to make permanent‚ life-altering medical decisions in many other contexts. This year‚ a whistleblower from a transgender center in Missouri said staff manipulated parents into consenting to gender-transition treatment by presenting them with a false choice between transition and suicide. “A common tactic was for doctors to tell the parent of a [girl]‚ ‘You can either have a living son or a dead daughter‚’” she said. This suicide argument even made an appearance in legislative debates‚ when Nebraska state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh‚ a Democrat‚ called a bill to protect minors from gender-transition procedures “a stepping stone in genocide.” However‚ the authors of this large Finnish study arrived at results that “do not suggest that medical GR [gender-reassignment] interventions resolve psychiatric [co-]morbidity among people experiencing gender distress.” In plain English‚ this means that gender-reassignment procedures‚ invasive and dramatic as they are‚ likely will not fix a person’s other mental health problems. Originally published by The Washington Stand Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Gender Reassignment Is No Cure for Mental Health Issues: Study appeared first on The Daily Signal.

We as a society need to assert that healthy families build human flourishing in every nation and culture‚ and we are not being honest with people when we don’t‚ said the CEO of what has been called the most influential free-market think tank in Britain. “There are some logical steps to what leads to human flourishing‚ and we need to be open about these things‚” Legatum Institute CEO and member of the British House of Lords Baroness Philippa Stroud told Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts on “The Kevin Roberts Show” podcast. She said that people should get a job‚ get married‚ and then have a child‚ in that order‚ to promote success for themselves and their families. Good social policy (that which promotes healthy families) makes for good economic policy‚ she said. “If we don’t have good social policy‚ we end up spending a huge amount of money on picking up the pieces of a breakdown. Whereas‚ actually‚ if we could get ahead of it [the breakdown of individuals and families] in our community to support people properly‚ then actually it wouldn’t—it doesn’t cost so much money later on‚” Stroud asserted. For the younger generation‚ there must be an effort to make it possible for them to have “hopes of owning a property” and “ensuring dignified work for all‚” according to Stroud.  Success for Stroud would be about changing the narrative to one that is “filling our children’s minds with the facts that they can—they do—have a future.” She said she believes in the importance of young people knowing that their efforts and agency can build and support a future for their families.  “We might have limited resources‚ but when you take those resources and you match them with human ingenuity‚ then actually‚ the potential is unlimited‚” Stroud said. To inspire the next generation‚ there should be a pathway for good leaders to be embedded in a community‚ working alongside others to inspire them‚ she said.  However‚ sometimes leaders may be reluctant to step forward. “One of the things we’ve seen is great leaders who say what everybody is thinking and then get mobbed on Twitter‚ and it damages people‚” Stroud said.  “The isolated leader standing on a hilltop on their own I don’t think in today’s world will make it. But communities of leaders building this vision‚ they will make it‚” she said.  She said that leaders need to be clear about the problems we have and a vision for addressing them. The challenge with politics is creating clarity about the issues‚ according to Stroud: “If you don’t create the clarity about the nature of a problem‚ why would people accept a solution?”  Politicians oftentimes don’t “cast a vision of the possibilities and the future that we can build together. Or if they do‚ they don’t then actually implement the journey towards that solution. So‚ people are just left with the nature of a problem‚” said Stroud.  “The only way to progress forward in my understanding … is [the] founding principle on the dignity of the human being … and that is a founding principle of this nation [the U.S.]” She said that gives her hope for the future. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Social and Economic Flourishing Starts With Building Healthy Families appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jacqueline Cochran waited impatiently in her New York City apartment while a group of men in Canada debated her fate. It was June 1941‚ and the renowned pilot hoped to ferry an American bomber across the Atlantic and deliver it to the Royal Air Force. Cochran was already well known for daredevil record-breaking flights but she also ran a cosmetics business‚ activities that might seem incompatible. But while she believed that women were just as good at flying airplanes as men‚ Cochran also felt it was “a woman’s duty to be as presentable as her circumstances of time and purse permit.” Her own available time might just be a few minutes to comb her hair and daub on fresh lipstick at the end of an 11-hour flight‚ but Cochran always looked as if she had just stepped out of a beauty salon. Cochran had done everything possible to prepare for the transatlantic flight. Lacking experience with heavy‚ multi-engine aircraft like the Lockheed Hudson she planned to fly‚ she’d received several hours of instruction in a Lodestar‚ another twin-engine Lockheed. She then flew to the home of the Atlantic Ferry Organization (Atfero) at Saint-Hubert Airport outside Montreal‚ to train on the Hudson. She passed all her check rides but had some trouble grasping the hand brake used on the ground. Given that difficulty‚ Atfero officials decided she would fly the bomber as a first officer; she could take the controls once airborne‚ but a male pilot would takeoff and land. That didn’t please Cochran‚ but there was nothing she could do about it. Many Atfero pilots opposed having her make the flight at all‚ and about 50 of them called a meeting to discuss the “problem.” Cochran’s husband‚ Floyd Odlum‚ attended to plead her case while she returned to New York. The pilots raised multiple objections: they said that Cochran was on a publicity stunt; claimed the flight was too dangerous for a woman; and complained that women pilots would take bread out of the men’s mouths. Odlum shot down each objection. Top left: Cochran and husband Floyd Odlum seemed an unlikely match‚ but it was Odlum who persuaded his wife to take up flying. Right: Cochran (right)‚ who ran a cosmetics business‚ applies makeup while fellow aviator Helen Richey looks on. Bottom left: Cochran and Amelia Earhart‚ seen here at Cochran’s ranch in 1936‚ were two of the world’s most famous aviators in the 1930s. Yes‚ Cochran wanted to be the first woman to fly a bomber across the Atlantic‚ but it wasn’t her idea. It had come up at a luncheon she had had with Clayton Knight‚ a World War I aviator who dabbled in all sorts of aviation-related activities‚ such as illustrating the Ace Drummond comic strip written by World War I ace Eddie Rickenbacker. Knight was recruiting U.S. pilots for Atfero; during the luncheon‚ he asked Cochran‚ “Why don’t you do some of this flying to England yourself to help dramatize the need? The publicity might help.” The Atfero pilots’ concern about danger really arose from the sense that if a woman could do the task‚ the perception would be that this “man’s job‚” as one pilot called it‚ wasn’t all that dangerous. The small possibility the Germans might try to shoot down Cochran was a risk she was willing to take. And Cochran was flying a single flight‚ not storming Atfero with a phalanx of women pilots to take jobs from men. The pilots ultimately conceded that the “higher-ups” had spoken in favor of the flight‚ and it was time to follow orders. Captain Grafton Carlisle received the assignment to fly with Cochran. He was angry at the situation—not at Cochran but at the other men‚ some of whom threatened to blackball him from flying jobs if he took the assignment. Cochran returned to Canada on June 16‚ 1941. The next morning‚ as she‚ Carlisle and a radio officer made their final preparations‚ the wives of the two men arrived‚ ostensibly to bring sandwiches. But the women weren’t worried about their husbands’ stomachs; they were concerned about threats made against them. The wives waited in their cars until the bomber took off. The first leg of the trip to Gander‚ Newfoundland‚ was uneventful. But the next morning‚ the ground roll during the takeoff run was so bumpy it felt like the Hudson was rolling over logs on the runway. Carlisle suspected that cold had affected the oleo struts‚ so he aborted the takeoff and taxied back to the ramp. The crew serviced the struts and off-loaded about 600 pounds of fuel for good measure. The takeoff was rough‚ but Carlisle managed to stagger into the air. Once the aircraft was safely airborne‚ Carlisle climbed out of the pilot’s seat and Cochran slid in to take the controls. Carlisle headed to the back of the airplane‚ and the three aviators settled in for the 11-hour flight to Prestwick‚ Scotland‚ which would be mostly above and in the clouds. Along the way‚ Cochran saw the aurora borealis for the first time; she found it “weird but entrancing.” Just before daybreak‚ the monotony was broken by tracer bullets that streaked toward the airplane. Carlisle and the radio operator dashed to the cockpit. The crew didn’t know if the bullets were British or German‚ but they must have come from a vessel below them. Carlisle grabbed a signal pistol and hurried to the back of the aircraft. He popped open a hatch and fired a signal bullet‚ colored to indicate the Hudson was a friendly aircraft. The bullets from below continued‚ and Cochran worried that the Germans were trying to kill her. But perhaps the cloud cover prevented anyone below from seeing the signal. The bullets suddenly stopped. When the Hudson landed‚ the crew found no damage to the bomber. Cochran never learned who had been shooting at them. Four decades after her death‚ Jacqueline Cochran remains an enigma. One of her biographers‚ Maryann Bucknum Brinley‚ summed her up as “an explosive study in contradictions‚” someone who was simultaneously “generous‚ egotistical‚ penny-pinching‚ compassionate‚ sensitive [and] aggressive.”  In Britain following her ferry flight‚ Cochran (right) talks with members of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force at work on a Hawker Hurricane at the RAF airfield in Duxford. Cochran claimed not to know when she was born or who her parents were. As an adult‚ she told people she was adopted and wove vivid stories of a childhood filled with gut-wrenching poverty. Another oft-repeated story had her picking the name “Cochran” out of a telephone book. But none of it was true. She had been born in 1906 in Florida’s panhandle. Her birth name was Bessie Lee Pittman; she was the youngest of five children in a working-class family. Sometime around 1920‚ Bessie Pittman married Robert Cochran. They had a son‚ also named Robert‚ who died in 1925 after setting himself on fire while playing with matches. The Cochrans divorced soon afterwards. Bessie moved to Montgomery‚ Alabama‚ to work as a hairdresser and began using the name Jacqueline. As she moved farther north‚ she buried her past along with her son. Cochran reached New York City in 1929 and landed a position at a salon in Saks Fifth Avenue. In 1932‚ she met Floyd Odlum‚ one of the world’s wealthiest men‚ and the two began dating‚ even though he was still married. The pair‚ who finally married in 1936‚ made for an odd couple: Odlum‚ far from a looker with his horn-rimmed glasses‚ next to the glamorous Cochran. It was Odlum who sparked Cochran’s interest in aviation. She wanted to sell cosmetics on the road; in order to cover enough territory to make money‚ he suggested she should fly. Why not get a pilot’s license? Cochran liked the idea. The Roosevelt Aviation School on Long Island advertised 20 hours of flight training for $495. Odlum bet her the $495 that she couldn’t get her license in six weeks. It was just the sort of challenge she needed. Cochran started her training on a Saturday and claimed she soloed two days later. Her engine quit during her first solo flight‚ but Cochran handled the emergency with aplomb‚ gliding back to the runway and touching down as if nothing had gone wrong. Three weeks later she had her license‚ and Odlum paid up. By 1934‚ Cochran had earned her commercial pilot’s license and was learning the art of flying on instruments. By then‚ she wanted to do more than sell cosmetics: she wanted to enter airplane races. Her first race attempt—an international route from England to Australia—ended in Bucharest‚ Romania‚ after she realized her aircraft‚ a Granville Gee Bee R6-H‚ wasn’t suited to such a long flight. In 1935‚ Cochran entered the Bendix Trophy Race‚ a Los Angeles-to-Cleveland contest launched in 1931 that took place each Labor Day weekend. Cliff Henderson‚ founder of the National Air Races‚ hoped the race’s $15‚000 purse would entice entrants to push the technological bounds of navigation‚ weather‚ efficiency‚ endurance and speed. Henderson had barred women from the race in 1934. A year earlier‚ 29-year-old Florence Klingensmith had died when a wing fell off her aircraft during a tight pylon turn at a race in Chicago. Male pilots died just about every year during the races‚ but Henderson apparently couldn’t stomach the thought of a woman’s death. After Frances Harrell Marsalis died in a crash at the first Women’s National Air Meet in August 1934‚ a writer asked in Popular Aviation magazine‚ “Is it worth the price?” Women pilots thought it was. They railed against Henderson’s injunction. Amelia Earhart‚ the most famous of them all‚ refused to fly actress Mary Pickford from Los Angeles to Cleveland‚ where Pickford was scheduled to open the races. Record-breaking aviator Jimmy Doolittle flew Pickford instead. Henderson relented the next year‚ and both Earhart and Cochran started the 1935 race in Burbank. On August 31‚ Earhart roared down the runway at 12:34 a.m. with two male pilots playing cards in the back of her Lockheed Vega. The trio wasn’t interested in winning; they just hoped to come in fifth place to earn $500 to cover their trip expenses. They got their wish. During World War II‚ Cochran takes the controls of a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk. In a 1944 speech to members of the WASP‚ Henry H. “Hap” Arnold‚ commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces‚ said that women had proven “that they can handle our fastest fighters‚ our heaviest bombers.” Fog rolled in after Earhart’s takeoff‚ so Cochran bided her time‚ finally lifting off at 4:22 a.m. in a Northrop Gamma. Her antenna snagged on a fence at the end of the runway‚ leaving her with no radio. After circling her fuel-laden aircraft to gain altitude‚ she crossed the San Bernardino Mountains. But the climb had strained her engine‚ and an ominous vibration rattled her aircraft’s tail. As Cochran approached the Grand Canyon at daylight‚ she knew there were no more airports for hundreds of miles to land in an emergency. Worse‚ thunderstorms lay ahead. Cochran was bold‚ but she knew her limits. The race was over for her. She turned around and landed at a nearby airport. Cochran didn’t race in 1936‚ the year Louise Thaden became the first woman to win the Bendix race and women took three of the five prizes. In 1937‚ two months after Earhart vanished during her round-the-globe flight‚ Cochran placed third. In 1938‚ flying a modified Seversky pursuit aircraft‚ Cochran departed Burbank at about 2:00 a.m. for her third attempt at the Bendix Trophy. For this race‚ the pilots wore oxygen masks as they pushed to altitudes above 20‚000 feet. Cochran flew through the night to the Seversky engine’s steady purr. As she crossed the Continental Divide‚ the engine sputtered and quit. Thinking she had run a fuel tank dry‚ Cochran switched to another tank. That didn’t help. She had plenty of fuel‚ but it wasn’t getting to the engine. Cochran kicked the rudder pedals back and forth‚ and the engine started again; the abrupt motion had unseated a blockage. After rocking the wings several times‚ Cochran found that the engine would keep running if she kept the left wing down. It was a bit awkward‚ but it worked. She zipped across the country in just eight hours and ten minutes without stopping for fuel‚ besting nine men for the win. After landing in Cleveland‚ she refueled‚ chatted with reporters for a few minutes and greeted Odlum with‚ “I need some cigarettes! I’ve been smoking a pipe all the way from Burbank—an oxygen pipe!” Newspapers‚ including the New York Times‚ splashed Cochran’s win across their front pages‚ coronating her as the queen of U.S. aviation. Even then‚ some speculated that Cochran hadn’t really flown the race—she must have had a male pilot with her. In 1939‚ Cochran outlined a plan to first lady Eleanor Roosevelt to get U.S. women into the cockpits of military aircraft to free up men for combat tasks. The plan hadn’t gone anywhere‚ but after ferrying the Hudson in 1941‚ Cochran observed women pilots ferrying aircraft around England. Maybe it was time to revive her idea. When she returned from England‚ Cochran met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt for lunch at Hyde Park‚ where she regaled him with tales about women pilots in England. The lunch opened doors for meetings with high-ranking War Department officials‚ including Brigadier General Robert Olds‚ who was interested but wanted to hire individual women pilots as civil servants or contractors; he would plug them in wherever needed. Left: Cochran continued pushing boundaries after the war. In 1961 she used a Northrop T-38 Talon to set numerous records‚ one of them a speed record of 844.2 mph. Right: Flying the chase plane during that flight was Colonel Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager‚ pictured here with Cochran. Cochran had a much bigger vision: an organization just for women pilots that she would run. But that vision remained entangled in Army bureaucracy. In mid-September‚ General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold‚ chief of the Army Air Forces‚ sent her a letter saying‚ “Not yet.” But he encouraged her to take some women to England to fly as contractors with the British Air Transport Auxiliary. The “experiment” would prove that such an organization could work in the U.S. To reassure Cochran that Olds wouldn’t hire any women on his own terms while she was gone‚ Arnold said‚ “I’ll keep Olds away from the women pilots.” Cochran had previously combed through Civil Aeronautics Authority files to come up with a list of potential women pilots‚ and by that fall‚ she had recruited 25 women who signed 18-month contracts and traveled to England. After initial training‚ they ferried British aircraft—Hurricanes‚ Spitfires‚ trainers and bombers—around the country.  After December 7‚ 1941‚ everything changed. With the United States now in the fight‚ more women wanted to help the war effort‚ and Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts revived a bill she had written earlier that year to establish the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC)‚ where woman would work “in air raid warning service‚ in domestic work for the Army‚ and as chauffeurs and mechanics.” Even with the U.S. now at war‚ it took the bill five months to become law on May 12‚ 1942. The legislation said nothing about women actually flying airplanes. Cochran remained in England. On September 10‚ 1942‚ ten days after Eleanor Roosevelt penned a newspaper column urging the use of women pilots‚ the Army Air Forces announced the formation of the Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron. There was just one problem: Cochran‚ who thought her deal with Hap Arnold would ensure no decisions were made while she was in England‚ wasn’t in charge. Instead of Cochran‚ 28-year-old Nancy Harkness Love received the assignment as the new organization’s “commander.” Despite her youth‚ Love was an accomplished pilot with 1‚200 flying hours. She was also married to Major Robert Love‚ whose job in Washington‚ D.C.‚ had introduced Nancy to those who eventually approved her organization. “Commander” was an honorary title; Love and the other women were employed as civilians‚ a decision made to avoid waiting for Congress to pass another bill allowing them into the military. The women pilots had to have at least 500 hours of flying time and a commercial pilot’s license that allowed them to fly airplanes with more than 200-horsepower engines. They would work for the Air Transport Command and would ferry aircraft from factories to Army airfields in the U.S. Love wasted no time setting up shop. On the day of the announcement‚ she arrived at New Castle Army Air Base in Delaware to start training the first 50 women. Cochran wasted no time either. Hap Arnold knew he had blown it‚ and on September 14 he installed her in another civilian position‚ the director of women’s flying training‚ where she focused on training women who had less than 500 hours of flying time. Cochran’s women received 100 hours of Army instruction and then flew for Love’s unit. Arnold had agreed to the arrangement for expediency but wasn’t happy to have two organizations. On August 5‚ 1943‚ he merged the two groups‚ creating the Women Airforce Service Pilots‚ or WASP. Cochran led the combined organization. Today the Talon is on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington‚ D.C. The Extra 260 flown by aerobatic champion Patty Wagstaff appears to be flying inverted above the Talon. Throughout the war‚ Cochran continued her fight to get the WASP military status. In 1943‚ women in the WAAC were rebranded as the Women’s Army Corps (WAC); dropping the word “auxiliary” made the women full Army members. But Cochran flatly rejected suggestions that the WASP be incorporated into the WAC. She claimed that “women pilots were a very temperamental group‚ and the administration of the program should be in the hands of one who understood them and their peculiar problems—that is‚ another pilot.” Certainly not WAC director Oveta Culp Hobby‚ the non-flying wife of a former Texas governor. Regardless of their status‚ by early 1944 the WASP were on shaky ground. The good news of lower-than-expected combat losses meant there was no shortage of male pilots. There was even a surplus‚ and men complained that women were stealing their jobs. On June 21‚ 1944‚ Congress voted against legislation to give the WASP military status. On October 1‚ Arnold ordered Cochran to deactivate the WASP no later than December 20. In all‚ 1‚074 women pilots graduated from training. The WASP did a wide variety of flying‚ from ferrying aircraft and towing targets to instrument instruction and simulated strafing missions. They flew almost every type of aircraft in the Army inventory‚ including light trainers‚ heavy bombers such as the Boeing B-29‚ and fighters such as the North American P-51. A month before the disbandment‚ Cochran praised the WASP during remarks to the National Aviation Conference in Oklahoma City: “I have not the slightest doubt but that these WASPs could have gone‚ if that were necessary‚ into combat work‚ fearlessly and effectively‚ just as Russian women have done.” Yet Cochran remained a study in contradictions. In 1974 she appeared before Congress to testify against admitting women to the U.S. Air Force Academy and she rejected the notion that women could be allowed in combat situations. “I haven’t adequate vocabulary to express my indignation over women who want to go into combat‚” she said. But Congress ignored her testimony and voted to admit women to the military academies. Cochran died in 1980 at the age of 74. Eleven years later‚ Congress overturned laws that prohibited women from flying combat aircraft. Despite her mixed record‚ Jacqueline Cochran had played an important part in the process that made it possible. this article first appeared in AVIATION HISTORY magazine See more stories Subscribe now  

Democracy Corps on Current Biden Polling Numbers: 'This is Grim'

Putin Heads to Saudi Arabia

On Tuesday night during a taped interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity‚ former President Trump refused to directly answer questions about whether he’d abuse presidential powers and/or break the law if he received a second term. In turn‚ ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC naturally latched onto that to hyperventilate into their proverbial brown paper bags and thus downplay President Biden admitting he wouldn’t be seeking a second term if Trump weren’t in the race. ABC’s Good Morning America played all apocalyptic and solemn. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopuolos huffed in an opening tease Trump “refuse[d] to rule out abusing the power of the presidency‚ if elected back into the White House” while brushing off Biden’s admission him being “candid.”     Stephanopoulos added at the start of the lead-off segment that Trump “refusing to rule out abusing the power of the presidency” was “the latest in a string of dangerous threats.” This gave way to chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl‚ who also has a new anti-Trump book to sale (following his previous two on Trump) and thus requires copious amounts of Trump doomsday talk: Donald Trump was asked a simple and direct question by a friendly interviewer and he wouldn’t rule out abusing power if he gets back to the White House. In fact‚ he used the word dictator to describe his plans for day one in office. At a town hall overnight with Fox News host Sean Hannity‚ Donald Trump was asked what should have been an easy question: Would he abuse the power of the presidency during his second term? Karl then showed some of the exchange. Judge for yourself (click “expand”): HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: I want to be very‚ very clear on this. To be clear‚ do you‚ in any way‚ have any plans whatsoever‚ if re-elected president‚ to abuse power‚ to break the law‚ to use the government to go after people? TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: You mean‚ like they’re using right now? KARL: He dodged the question‚ but minutes later‚ Hannity pressed him again for an answer. HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: Under no circumstances‚ you are promising America tonight‚ you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody? TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: Except for day one. HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: Except for —  TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: Look‚ he’s going crazy. Except for day one. HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: Meaning? TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: I want to close the border and I want to drill‚ drill —  HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: That’s not. That’s —  TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]:  — drill. HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: — that’s not — TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: No‚ no. HANNITY [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]:  — that’s not retribution. I got it. TRUMP [on FNC’s Hannity‚ 12/05/23]: I’m going to — I’m going to be — you know — we love this guy. He says you’re not going to be a dictator‚ are you? I said no‚ no‚ other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling‚ drilling‚ drilling. After that‚ I’m not a dictator. Karl reacted with more kvetching about this being “just the latest comment from the former President that’s raised alarms about what he would do if he makes it back to the White House and it comes as Joe Biden is making the threat Trump poses to democracy a big part of his campaign message.” Instead of even suggesting one take on Biden’s comments could be harmful to undecided voters‚ Karl suggested there’s no there there since Biden “later clarified...that he would still be running even if Trump dropped out.” The rest of Karl’s lengthy segment was being hot and bothered by leaks from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team about Trump’s January 6 case before Stephanopoulos concluded with disgust that Trump’s “intentions and the motivations hiding in plain sight.” Along with Stephanopoulos brief in the 7:30 a.m. Eastern half-hour‚ the second hour included a report on Wednesday’s GOP debate and this question from senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott: “Will any of his rivals respond to those latest comments that he made just hours ago‚ saying that he would be a dictator only on day one‚ not ruling out abusing his power if elected?” CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today rolled their coverage of Biden‚ previewing the debate‚ and Trump’s comments into one segment. On CBS‚ co-host Nate Burleson said Biden’s claim about not running for reelection if Trump weren’t around were “comments...drawing some attention.” Anti-Trump author and chief elections and campaign correspondent Robert Costa proclaimed he’d “be closely watching” the debate to see “how Trump’s rivals respond to his comments about not wanting to be dictator except on day one” and whether they’ll “grapple with” or “shrug it off.” NBC had their co-hosts weigh in with Savannah Guthrie saying “Democrats are pouncing” over Trump’s comments about executive power and Hoda Kotb argued what Trump was “raising eyebrows with some controversial comments.” Senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake also downplayed Biden’s gaffe and relayed that Trump “laughed off questions about whether he would become a dictator if he returned to the Oval Office.” He then continued (click “expand”): HAAKE: Overnight‚ during a taped town hall in Iowa‚ former President Trump mocking questions about turning the presidency into a dictatorship. Moderator Sean Hannity asking Mr. Trump if he had plans to abuse his power or break the law if he were reelected or to seek retribution against others. [TRUMP CLIP] HAAKE: The Biden campaign quick to respond‚ writing in a statement‚ “Donald Trump has been telling us exactly what he will do if he’s re-elected and tonight he said he will be a dictator on day one.” Just days ago‚ former Congresswoman Liz Cheney expressing similar concerns to Savannah. [GUTHRIE-CHENEY CLIP] HAAKE: Earlier Tuesday at a fundraiser in Boston‚ President Biden telling donors‚ “if Trump wasn’t running I’m not sure I’d be running. But we cannot let him win.” Returning to the White House‚ the President making clear he’s staying in this race. (....) KOTB: So‚ Garrett‚ there was some — as you said‚ controversial comments from former President Trump‚ he’d be a dictator on the first day. Do you think the other candidates are going to address that issue tonight at the debate? HAAKE: The other candidates have tried as hard as they can to not address the controversial things that Donald Trump has said‚ at least when they don’t relate to policy. But‚ on other things...they have‚ in some cases‚ chased him to the right. To see the relevant transcripts from December 6‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC).

As an experienced prepper‚ I’ve spent years honing my skills and preparing for the unexpected. My journey began with a thirst for knowledge and a deep-seated desire to ensure the safety and well-being of my family and loved ones in times of crisis. The post Must-Have Tools For Your Bug-out Bag appeared first on Survivopedia.

Hundreds of New York City bodega workers have become concealed carriers — and they've done so through a "secret society of gun owners‚" WNYW-TV reported.What are the details?The United Bodegas of America on Sunday said the group formed a "secret society" for bodega workers and owners across New York City to legally obtain concealed carry licenses‚ the station said‚ adding that the UBA initiated things after the pandemic."Anyone that's out there looking to rob us‚ hurt us‚ kill us — beware‚" said UBA spokesperson Fernando Mateo‚ according to WNYW. "You may be walking into the wrong bodega because now we have the same firepower you have."The station said the process took nearly two years because the bodega workers wanted it safe‚ legal — and secret‚ the station said. Specifically‚ criminals won't know which bodega workers are carrying concealed guns‚ WNYW noted.Gun training courses are held at UBA headquarters in Inwood‚ WNYW said‚ adding that authorized instructors such as Johnny Nunez — a retired NYPD sergeant and former New York City police academy instructor — head them up."Having a firearm is a defensive tool‚" Nunez noted to the station. "It’s not an offensive tool. [It’s] to be used when your life or the life of another human is in – key words – imminent danger."Cases in point:WNYW said 15-year-old Lesandro "Junior" Guzman-Feliz sought shelter in a Bronx bodega before Trinitarios gang members dragged him out and killed him in 2015.Readers of Blaze News will recall 61-year-old New York City deli worker Jose Alba who fatally stabbed an attacker in 2022‚ only to be thrown in jail before Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg finally dropped all charges against him."We are not out here to provoke any incidents‚" Mateo added to WNYW. "We're trained to de-escalate situations‚ but we are also trained to use a firearm if we have to."Barbara Moreta is from the Dominican Republic and has owned a bodega since 2015‚ the station said‚ adding that she's thinking about applying for a concealed carry permit through the UBA."When they see a woman‚ they think they can do everything‚ but if I have my gun‚ I think it's better for the store‚" Moreta explained to WNYW. "And [if] some people ... come to do something bad‚ [they’ll be] scared."The station said a 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the New York State Rifle &; Pistol Association v. Bruen case made it easier for the UBA to navigate obstacles that otherwise would make it difficult for members to get concealed carry licenses. NYC bodega workers become legal gun owners through ‘secret society’ youtu.be Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trumpeting the Biden administration’s record to Latinos in Houston last week‚ Vice President Kamala Harris ignored the two biggest issues Hispanics — and everyone else in the Lone Star State — are facing today: wide-open borders and the failure of Bidenomics.Texas Latinos weren’t impressed.“Kamala Harris coming to Houston while continuing to ignore the crisis at our southern border is a slap in the face to every Texan‚ every American‚ and every Hispanic American in this country‚” said former U.S. Rep. Mayra Flores.It turns out that Hispanic voters are not so interested in government handouts‚ Ivy League radicalism‚ or free abortions on demand.Why did Harris — the administration’s appointed and anointed “border czar” — come to Texas anyway? It’s a sign that Democrats are rightly worried that the Latino portion of their traditional base is beginning to lose interest in what they have to offer.And they’re right to be worried. Even the Washington Post acknowledged that “Hispanic voters are drifting toward the GOP‚” citing not only President Donald Trump’s showing with Hispanics in 2020 but also kitchen table issues such as the economy and inflation.“Polls consistently find that Hispanic voters prefer Republicans to Democrats on inflation and handling the economy‚” Democratic consultant Ruy Teixeira wrote. “Nearly all — 86 percent — Hispanics say economic conditions are only fair or poor‚ and about three-quarters say the same thing about their personal financial situation. By 2 to 1 they say President Biden’s policies are hurting‚ not helping‚ them and their families.”Yet the vice president’s trip shows the Biden administration continues to fundamentally misunderstand the hardworking‚ tradition-minded Hispanic community. It turns out that they’re not so interested in government handouts‚ Ivy League radicalism‚ or free abortions on demand; they’re far more focused on freedom and opportunity for their families.And the Biden administration’s policies put those goals further and further out of reach.Let’s start with the border. Citing a poll by the Libre Institute‚ CBS News reported that “65% of 1‚000 Latinos surveyed indicated that more needed to be done to control illegal immigration along the southern border. The Immigration Hub-commissioned poll also found 63% of Latino voters support increased border security.”That’s seen everywhere‚ including the so-called sanctuary cities such as Chicago‚ which are appealing to the Biden administration for bailouts as they deal with just a fraction of the illegal immigration that Texas has to face every day.“There has been large-scale resistance not from the cities’ white hipsters‚ but instead from those in black and Latino neighborhoods‚” reported Kristin Tate for the Messenger. “Hundreds of residents of Chicago’s racially diverse Hyde Park neighborhood protested against a resettlement plan at a public meeting. And protesters marched in New York City with signs in English and Spanish calling the wave of migrants an ‘invasion.’”By the way‚ the Democrats’ misunderstanding of the border issue extends to black voters‚ as well. “Nearly three times as many black Democrats describe illegal immigration as a ‘threat’ to the country than their white Democrat counterparts‚” Tate noted.The vice president also misread the room — indeed the nation — in lauding the administration’s “transformative policies for the American people.”Transformative‚ indeed. The fact is‚ Americans are hurting — and that includes Hispanic Americans.Writing for Fox News‚ Job Creators Network CEO Alfredo Ortiz argued that Bidenomics is at the heart of why Hispanics are moving to the Republican Party. Noting that the median national income declined sharply in 2022 due to inflation‚ Ortiz wrote‚ “The pain of falling living standards is especially acute for Hispanics‚ who earn far less than average Americans. What a contrast to 2017 to 2019‚ when Hispanics' real median household incomes rose by $6‚710 due to the Trump economic boom.”If Kamala Harris had the nerve to ask Hispanics if they’re better off now than they were four years ago‚ that would be the answer. Mayra Flores quite nicely summed up the Democrats’ fears in her response to the vice president’s trip: “Hispanic Americans are flocking toward the Republican Party because we have the solutions to solve the issues at the border‚ the gas pump‚ the grocery store‚ and everywhere in between.”