What is the least diverse place in America? by Charlie Kirk

What is the least diverse place in America? 

By Charlie Kirk

What is the least diverse place in America? It’s the institution that most actively seeks racial, ethnic, gender, and cultural diversity: the college campus! Colleges want students to look different, but think the same. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, explains:

It’s appalling that, in the 21st century, there is still so little diversity on American college campuses.

This. Cannot. Stand.

It’s not who we are. It’s intolerable. It’s time we demand a change. It’s time to stage a protest, to storm the dean’s office. We will not be ignored.

Diversity is our strength. I’m not talking about diversity of skin color. Been there, done that. Today’s campuses are more racially integrated than at any time in history.

And I’m not talking about gender diversity. Women already make up the majority of college graduates. And if your concern is non-binary gender, there is no place on earth more accepting of hims, hers, zims and zirs than a college campus. I’m not even talking about sexual diversity. You can pretty much experiment with anyone you want, in any way you want, as long as you get a consent form signed and notarized in advance.

No, the diversity I’m talking about is diversity… of thought! Let me say it again, in case you missed it: Diversity of thought.

That’s right: people expressing different points of view on an issue. At most colleges today, that’s a dangerous, revolutionary idea – if that different point of view is not on the left. The moment you enter college, you enter an indoctrination center. Remember orientation week? It starts there and never stops. They tell you to be open-minded, but they don’t really mean it. Almost all your professors are on the left – nearly 12 to 1, left to right, according to a recent study by Econ Journal Watch. There are many departments at many colleges that don’t have a single conservative voice. The administration invariably supports leftist positions. And, all those diversity administrators – they depend for their livelihood (that means their paycheck) on creating victims.

Diversity of race, or gender, or sexuality, or any of the other distinctions du jour that universities glorify are, at best, superficial and, at worst, just plain destructive. It’s destructive to any real learning. If you don’t study Shakespeare because he was a white male, you have been deprived of learning from the most brilliant playwright who ever lived.

And it’s destructive of a peaceful campus environment because it pits racial, ethnic, and gender groups against one another. In other words, diversity, as practiced on your typical college campus, divides – not unites – people.

And diversity of thought? The free exchange of ideas? You know, what college is actually supposed to be about? Not happening.

If you’ve been in college for a few years, ask yourself this: When was the last time you heard a professor or a TA make the argument that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system? Or that socialism always leads to poverty? Or that the post-World War II order created by America has been the freest and most prosperous time in human history? Or that the cause of high crime rates in black communities has very little to do with historic racism? And God forbid if a conservative speaker should show up on campus and dare to say any of these things.

Turning Point USA is leading the charge to restore freedom of thought in higher education.

Our activists and student leaders are out on their campuses every single day organizing groups, challenging the status quo, and promoting our message to an audience that desperately needs to hear it.

It takes so much bravery and boldness to do this.

 

Our chapter at East Carolina University brought Tomi Lahren to campus on Monday. Over 700 students came out to see her speak.

Our college campuses need more strong, courageous student leaders. Can you help us equip our students with the tools, training, and support they need to bring our principles and values to their campuses?

Charlie Kirk is founder and executive director of Turning Point USA.

To learn more about Turning Point USA:

Turning Point USA

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

Gen. Vallely: US Now ‘Dealing Peace Through Strength’

Gen. Vallely: US Now ‘Dealing Peace Through Strength’

Newsmax TV’s “America Talks Live”

By Bill Hoffmann   |   Monday, 17 Apr 2017 03:52 PM

President Donald Trump has put saber-rattling countries on notice the United States is ready to use military action against its aggressors, retired U.S. Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely told Newsmax TV.

With his attack on a Syrian missile base and the dropping of “the mother of bombs” on Islamic State targets in Afghanistan, Trump has shown the U.S. is a strong nation once again, Vallely said Monday.

“It’s a strong message that we have a strong president now where we’ve been void of any strength on the international scene for the last eight or nine years,” he told Bill Tucker on “America Talks Live.”

“It’s very important that our allies particularly see us – and any other nation in the world – as a strong nation now that is dealing peace through strength, and that’s a good message.”

Vallely – who chairs Stand Up America, which promotes the principles of America’s founding fathers – said he is impressed by Trump’s deployment of Vice President Mike Pence to address national security.

“President Trump is using the vice president in national security, probably more so than any other past administrations have done,” he told Tucker.

During a visit Monday to South Korea, Pence stopped at the demilitarized zone and warned North Korea the U.S. “era of strategic patience is over” in regard to its nuclear missile program.

“That is great to get over on the DMZ and see actually what the situation is. I think [National Security Adviser] Gen. McMaster and Vice President Pence are really saying the same thing,” Vallely said. “That this strategic patience and trying to work with the North Koreans and the Chinese on this has not gone well because North Korea has strengthened its nuclear missile capability.

“We’ve been watching that for years, but no one’s ever taken any positive action. . . . What is going to happen, though, if they are conducting a direct threat against the U.S. or its allies or the fleets, then we will take military action against them.”

Asked by Tucker if the United States risks taking on too many military engagements against its enemies, Vallely said: “I think you have to look really in an analytical way and from the strategic position of the United States and the world. Really you can identify the real threats on one hand.

“It’s not like we have all these threats all over. We have them with Korea, we have ISIS, and we have Iran. Those are the primary threats.

“So, from that standpoint, we can really focus on identifying those threats, adapting particular actions, strategic actions against each of those threats, and we can do it simultaneously if we have to.”

Vallely is the author of “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror,” written with retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney and published by Regnery.

Interview here

 

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

BACK TO NUCLEAR BASICS: DOES UNlateral RESTRAINT WORK?” by Pete Hoekstra

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor former Congressman Pete Hoekstra. Pete represented Michigan for 18 years in Congress as chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee and as a leading bipartisan voice on policy and oversight of national security, education, labor, and economic issues.

 

 

 

“BACK TO NUCLEAR BASICS: DOES UNlateral RESTRAINT WORK?”

By Pete Hoekstra

Nuclear weapons are in the news multiple times each day, with unsettling events in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia escalating the concern that the United States is entering an era of growing instability and uncertainty.

While there are serious and gathering nuclear threats facing the United States and our allies, there is no need to panic, nor believe that doomsday is just around the corner. But we do need to get on with the task of modernizing our nuclear deterrent, enhancing our ballistic missile defenses and working effectively to stop the proliferation of such weapons.

This essay addresses the question of how best to maintain nuclear deterrence. Critics of the current US modernization plan urge the US to exercise restraint by curtailing the modernization of significant portions of our nuclear deterrent under the assumption that if the United States unilaterally stops “arms racing”, our adversaries such as Russia and China will as well.

My conclusion is three fold: (1) recent history shows restraint does not work; (2) nuclear modernization is absolutely required; and (3) a renewed “peace through strength” policy will both reduce nuclear dangers and restore some stability in international affairs.

First, let’s review the facts of the nuclear landscape.

The United States has deployed in its strategic nuclear forces under 1600 nuclear warheads, at least 1000 warheads less than the Russians. [The Russians have to reduce these numbers to the New Start level by February 2018].

Second, the United States has a few hundred tactical or theater nuclear weapons, less than the 2000-5000 such weapons held by Russia.

Third, the Russians are on a pace to modernize at least 90% of their nuclear deterrent force by the turn of the decade, no later than 2021 it appears. By contrast, the US modernization begins with the deployment of a new bomber, submarine and land based missiles no earlier than from mid-2027 through 2031, so US modernization restraint is hardly called for.

Fourth, and just to be clear, current forces are capable but in need of significant investment. Most of the US forces were fielded 30 or more years ago and are at the end of their service lives. They are thus actually way past due for modernization, and that is the only way they can remain credible and capable as the foundation of our deterrent. Four senior USAF and Navy nuclear commanders underscored this point in HASC testimony on March 8, 2017.

In that context, how should we treat calls for major US restraint in rebuilding our nuclear arms? Perhaps it would be instructive to review the impact of US nuclear unilateral restraint just before and following the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now to be clear, the US and the Soviet Union and then Russia jointly agreed to the INF (1987), START I (July 1991) and START II (January 1993) nuclear weapons treaties. But unlike in the post 1990 period, we significantly invested in a simultaneous modernization of our entire nuclear deterrent during the Reagan administration while also seeking arms control. Peace through strength worked as we secured major reductions in Soviet-era nuclear weapons and the end of the Soviet Union.

It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union did our nuclear investments markedly decline. The US went beyond the joint treaties with Moscow and took a large number of additional unilateral actions in both the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations, many of them codified in the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). This restraint included a US nuclear policy which:

“Created no new mission or scenario for nuclear-weapon use and articulated the premise that nuclear weapons play a smaller role in U.S. security today than at any other time in the nuclear age.

“Codified that the United States no longer targets any country with strategic nuclear forces on a day-to-day basis.

“Specified that U.S. strategic bombers were taken off alert. Further, more ballistic missile submarines now patrol on “modified alert” out of the range of their targets than on an “alert” status. The U.S. airborne command and control posts now operate at a reduced tempo.

“Called for continued reduction of defense expenditures for strategic nuclear forces and in the number of associated personnel. The levels for FY 97 were roughly one-third those of FY 88.

“Terminated U.S. ground-force nuclear capability and training for nuclear missions. By FY 97, the number of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe was down from a peak of 7,000 to ‘hundreds.’

“Mandated that all nonstrategic nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, depth charges, and torpedoes, be removed from surface ships, multipurpose submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases. The capability to deploy such weapons on U.S. surface ships has now been eliminated.

“Continued the reduction of the overall U.S. nuclear stockpile–a 59 percent reduction from FY 88 to FY 97. Ninety percent of the nonstrategic nuclear stockpile was eliminated.

The NPR also assumed such unilateral reductions were safe to undertake because the Russians would not brandish for diplomatic or military purposes its nuclear weapons. The study further assumed the Russian leadership was intent on fully joining the “international community of market economies”, and that the Russian nuclear arsenal would not pose a serious threat to the United States. Overall, the report generally foresaw a relatively benign future nuclear environment. (1)

What happened?

In fact, after the American unilateral exercise of nuclear restraint, these serious and adverse nuclear developments followed:

  • The Russians in 2000 turned down START II arguing that Moscow would not agree to the treaty’s ban on multiple warhead land based missiles. Russia insisted that all US work on missile defenses had to be contained within the laboratory with strict adherence to the ABM Treaty. Those conditions were not acceptable to the Clinton administration nor the Congress and thus the treaty never went into effect.
  • North Korea worked to produce nuclear weapons fuel in violation of the 1995 Agreed Framework that purported to end Pyongyang’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Eventually, in 2006 North Korea tested an actual nuclear weapon while advancing its ballistic missile delivery systems.
  • Iran went forward with its nuclear work, both increasing its capacity to make enriched nuclear fuel and seeking help to design warheads.
  • The Khan network out of Pakistan, what I have termed the “Nukes ‘R Us” outfit, expanded its work of distributing nuclear weapons technology and scientific nuclear know-how to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
  • Pakistan and India, as well, exploded nuclear devices and made plans to sharply increase their inventory of nuclear weapons.
  • China, too, expanded its nuclear capability, and began the construction of what appears to have been $50 billion (my estimate) in missile tunnels and train tracks that would come to house mobile land based missiles, as part of a modernization of all elements of their nuclear deterrent.

In addition, Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea went unchecked, and China unilaterally seized atolls and reefs in the South China Sea on which it is building military bases.

In just the past decade, Russia and China together have rhetorically brandished nuclear weapons three dozen times, threatening to use such weapons in the conduct of their foreign policy, and rhetorically threatening to push the US and its allies to give up important international security objectives or risk nuclear attack.

Recently, both Norway and Denmark, for example, were added to the Russian nuclear target list said the Kremlin, for the “provocative” one for protecting its territorial sea from the incursion of Russian submarines and the other for planning to put a missile defense capability on its Navy Aegis cruisers.

The gathering nuclear threats today cannot be tied to any notion that the US has not evidenced sufficient restraint, including unilateral gestures of nuclear arms control.

China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, seek to replace a rules based civilized order with one of blackmail, coercion, terror and aggression. Acting with restraint in the fact of such aggression is not a policy but it is a faith based hope. Nuclear dangers arose in part because we exercised excessive restraint, what one senior Air Force official described as a “nuclear procurement holiday”created a security vacuum that over a period of the past two decades the bad “hombres” filled.

President Trump has argued that the United States must maintain its nuclear deterrent forces at “the top of the heap” when compared to our adversaries. He has also repeatedly noted that our forces are in need of repair and modernization as Russia and China fully modernize their nuclear forces.

Here the disarmament advocates appear to trying to have it both ways—the claim nothing is wrong with our deterrent as it still is better than the Russians but simultaneously they argue we need to kill large segments of that same force so the Russians don’t engage in an arms race!

For example, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former defense logistics staffer Lawrence Korb both advocate a massive unilateral 97% reduction in America’s nuclear assets plus a one-third reduction in our warheads, arguing that maintaining nuclear parity with the Russians is unnecessary.

If we don’t try to retreat our way to nuclear safety, isn’t the alternative unaffordable? Can we really increase the defense budget adequately to fully modernize the nuclear deterrent?

Again, let us look at the facts. The United States now spends in the neighborhood of 5% of the defense budget on nuclear modernization. At the peak of this effort next decade, we will be spending 6% but only one half of one percent of the Federal budget. That means for every $100 Uncle Sam spends, the nuclear deterrent gets 50 cents.

Looked at another way, this is the equivalent of a household with a $52,000 income—the national per capita GDP average—spending on auto, fire, life, and homeowners insurance $22 a month.

Ok, it may be cheap the critics might admit, but what does it matter if we underfund our defense? What if we simply gamble and spent less?

Well, let’s look at some history.

Prior to World War II and the Korean War, the US defense budgets were dramatically curtailed or sustained at levels incompatible with our security.

We know that the US and its allies were woefully unprepared for both conflicts.

Defense spending in the US was $700 million in 1933; it remained at that level for every year of that decade up to Pearl Harbor.

After WWII, from 1945-50, US defense budgets declined markedly, from near $90 billion at the war’s end to under $10 billion. Just a year prior to the Korean War, the US defense secretary was urging Congress to cut the defense budget down to no more than $7 billion a year.

On December 7th, 1941, and June 25, 1950, respectively, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and North Korea invaded the Republic of Korea. These wars killed a combined 81 million people, out of a world population of roughly 2.4 billion, or three percent of all the people alive at the time.

These wars were fought almost entirely without the use of nuclear weapons, with the exception of the bombing of two Japanese cities which historians agree saved the lives of millions of people by ending the war in the Pacific.

Spending $26 billion annually now on nuclear deterrence, increasing to $35 billion by the middle of next decade, is a prudent insurance policy that will annually cost $9 billion more next decade than today.

These are the projected nuclear investments now planned in budgets approved by Congress.

By contrast, Americans spent $11 billion in 2016 just going to the movies.

Today’s investment is with treasure and yes the amount is a lot of money.

But if we get this wrong, tomorrow will be paid in blood.

Just to save $9 billion a year or $28 for every American living today, think of what we are willing to risk. As the advertisement says, you can pay me today, or you can pay me tomorrow.

World War II and the Korean War were fought with conventional weapons. And upwards of 84 million people perished.

The next war could be fought with nuclear ones. And we are willing to take that risk just to save each American $28 a year?

 

 

 

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

“Eyes on ISIS” by F. Michael Maloof

 

 

EYES ON ISIS
Experts turn out ‘counterjihad’
blueprint for America
Concerned because U.S. foreign policy lacks national security objectives for Mideast, N. Africa
By F. Michael Maloof

WASHINGTON –

A plan to defeat the “global jihad movement” has been released by a team of national security experts who say it offers a blueprint for a “counterjihad security architecture for America” to confront what they call the “existential struggle of our time.”

The Legacy National Security Advisory Group, founded by retired Army U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely under the auspices of his Stand Up America US foundation, claims U.S. foreign policy has fallen short in setting goals for the region under Obama that encompasses the Middle East and North Africa.

“The U.S. has limited national security objectives in the MENA region, but they are important and must be precisely defined,” Vallely told G2Bulletin.

He said the objectives of the blueprint are to defend U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and military assets in the region, keep open the naval, maritime and commercial sea lanes and defend the free passage of oil and other commercial goods.

In addition, he said, the United States must make sure critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea and Suez Canal are not controlled by that jihadists or other forces “hostile” to the U.S. and the West.

The plan also calls for defense and support of regional allies to include Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Kurdish people.

In effect, Vallely said, the United States must seek a balance of power in the MENA region, rebuild the military and defeat the ISIS – “global jihad movement.”

The Legacy blueprint also said it is important to help create a “balance of power” between Shiite and Sunni Islamic forces, while avoiding actions to further destabilize the region “unless compelled in defense of other core U.S. national security objectives.”

“We must understand that fashionable policies like ‘exporting democracy. COIN (counterinsurgency) winning hearts and minds’ and ‘nation building’ are futile among societies of Islamic law (Sharia) and have showed no success. America must move the strategic “Lily Pad” concept and doctrine as articulated by MG Vallely in other published documents.

“Sometimes accepting local strongman rule that supports U.S. and Western interests, even though not democratic, is the lesser of two evils when the alternative would be either chaos or an Islamic jihad-and-Shariah takeover,” the document said.

It also calls for rebuilding the U.S. military “ASAP” (as soon as possible), given that sequestration has “decimated” U.S. military readiness, hindering its efforts to respond effectively to “national security requirements.”

It also said that Sharia law is a threat, calling on the White House to formulate and implement a national security strategy that “defines Islamic Law (Sharia) as an enemy threat doctrine.”

“It must be a priority objective of this new National Security Strategy to deter and defeat Islamic jihad globally,” the Legacy document said. “To do that, it will be necessary that U.S. national security leadership understand that the Sharia threat is advanced by way of jihad, which may be kinetic or non-kinetic.”

It also called for the White House and the intelligence community to “remove the jihadist penetration of and influence operations against the U.S. government, especially at top levels of national security.”

The blueprint particularly singled out Iran with its weapons of mass destruction programs, especially “nuclear and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) programs and international continental ballistic missile delivery systems.”

It said these pose an “existential threat to the U.S. mainland as well as to regional allies like Israel.”

The Syrian Renaissance (Rebirth, Restoration and Rebuilding of Syria) has just been launched by SUA.

Michael Maloof, senior staff writer for WND/ G2Bulletin, is a former security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Maloof is author of “A Nation Forsaken—EMP: The Escalating Threat of an American Catastrophe,” the e-book, “ISIS Rising: Prelude to a neo-Ottoman Caliphate.

 

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign up

 

GLOBALISTS FIGHT PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR OF WORDS AGAINST AMERICA by Michael Cutler

Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor, Michael Cutler, retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings.

He hosts “The Michael Cutler Hour” on USA Talk Radio Fridays at 7 p.m. (EST) and is frequently interviewed by broadcast media on various aspects of immigration issues, especially the nexus to national security.

 

 

GLOBALISTS FIGHT PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR OF WORDS AGAINST AMERICA

By Michael Cutler

Borders are a nation’s first line of defense and last line of defense against the enemies of that nation. In fact, it could properly be said that the primary role of our military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores (and borders) as possible.

However, “up close and in person,” the issue of border security becomes the domain and responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies charged with border security and the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

The report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” began with this paragraph :

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

However, border security is a problem for globalists who see in secure borders impediments to their wealth. And, politicians who depend on political campaign contributions, by necessity, must take into account the demands of their campaign contributors, many of whom have globalist objectives.

Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of other special interest groups that depend on the exploitation of the immigration system are eager to fill the campaign coffers of politicians irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans in order to get “the best government money can buy.”

Today news reports on immigration often lack clarity and honesty. Frequently news reports appear to have been written by Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” and the term “propaganda” comes to mind when considering them.

Consider that “propaganda” has been described thusly:

propaganda |ˌpräpəˈɡandə|
noun
chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.

the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary.

All too frequently journalists have been participants in efforts to obfuscate the issue of immigration following the lead of Jimmy Carter, originator of the Orwellian term, “undocumented immigrant.” Their news reports foisted on Americans are part of what I have come to refer to as the immigration con game.

President Trump’s executive order to temporarily block the entry of aliens from seven countries parallels the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Aliens from those countries cannot be effectively vetted; yet, major news organizations breathlessly exclaimed that aliens who had been issued visas were denied entry into the U.S., blithely ignoring the fact that aliens with valid visas are routinely denied entry into the United States by Customs and Border Protection Inspectors, an issue with which I am intimately familiar.

For the first four years of my 30-year career with the former INS I was an Immigration Inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport. My article, “Aliens Guaranteed Entry Into The U.S.? – Trump’s executive order on immigration and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,” explained how a visa should be simply thought of as a “ticket” that enables an alien seeking U.S. entry to a port of entry and make an application for admission. However, an alien who has been issued a visa is not guaranteed entry into the country. Indeed, aliens do not have an inherent right to enter the U.S.; only American citizens do.

Furthermore, while nearly every news report identified those seven countries as being “majority Muslim countries,” ignored was the fact that the Obama administration had compiled that list of countries because they were identified with terrorism and were therefore extremely problematic.

Unfortunately too many Americans are “drinking the Kool-Aid,” an expression that refers to the deaths of more than 900 people who killed themselves or murdered their children, blindly following the insane exhortations of charismatic cult leader Jim Jones, in what came to be known as “The Jonestown Massacre.”

Those Americans should put down their straws and be relieved, not angered, that for once our government is seeking to protect innocent lives, putting safety ahead of the globalists’ anti-American agenda.

Support Link

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up