The Daily Signal - #536: A New Citizen Shares Her Journey

Episode Date: August 29, 2019

This week, we're featuring a few top news item and then an episode of "Problematic Women." This week, Heritage Foundation scholar Romina Boccia talks about what it was like going through the citizenship process and what becoming a U.S. citizen means to her. We also break down: —Taylor Swift doubles down on her support for the Equality Act, calling out President Donald Trump and the White House. —Planned Parenthood’s new ad campaign, “Bans Off My Body,” probably features your favorite band. —The left’s politicization of billionaire philanthropist David Koch’s death. —The College Board’s announcement that it won’t move forward with plans to include a “diversity score” with SAT testing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, August 29th. I'm Daniel Davis. And I'm Kate Trinco. So today we had a little bit of a technical difficulty. So instead of playing our normal interviews, we're going to play from our sister podcast, Problematic Women. But before we do that, we're going to get into the top news. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news.

As Puerto Rico grapples with Hurricane Dorian, President Trump is sending messages to the island. On Wednesday, he tweeted, quote, We are tracking closely tropical storm Dorian as it heads, as usual, to Puerto Rico. FEMA and all others are ready and will do a great job. When they do, let them know it and give them a big thank you. Not like last time. That includes from the incompetent mayor of San Juan. Later in the day, though, Trump struck a different tone.

He tweeted, quote, Puerto Rico is one of the most corrupt places on earth. Their political system is broken and their politicians are either incompetent or corrupt. Congress approved billions of dollars last time, more than any place else has ever gotten, and it is sent to Crooked Paul's. No good. And, by the way, I'm the best thing that's ever happened to Puerto Rico. A Republican Senator Johnny Isaacson of Georgia is resigning at the end of the year. He announced the decision Wednesday, citing ongoing health issues. He said, quote, my Parkinson's has been progressing, and I'm continuing physical therapy to recover from a fall in July.

In addition, this week, I had surgery to remove a growth on my kidney, end quote. Isaacson has served in the Senate since 2005, and his current term is set to end in 2022. Georgia's governor is expected to choose a successor to finish out the term. Oregon is now opting out of getting government dollars. through the Title X program due to the new rule that requires that if you get government dollars, you can't promote abortion as a way of family planning. Oregon isn't the first state to pick abortion over government dollars. Vermont and Washington state have also decided to leave.

Planned Parenthood as well will no longer be receiving Title X dollars. Queen Elizabeth has approved Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan to suspend Parliament in September ahead of a highly anticipated Brexit showdown with the European Union. The Prime Minister's plan will cut the amount of time that members of Parliament have to pass legislation to a no-deal Brexit, something Johnson has said he's willing to do. Brexit is scheduled for October 31st. Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed the decision, saying, quote, suspending Parliament is not acceptable. It is not on.

What the Prime Minister is doing is a smash-and-grab on our democracy to force through a no-de-no-eat-a-one. deal, end quote. Neighborhood watches might be getting a little more intense. The firm ring, which sells doorbell cameras, has partnered with 400 police departments according to a report in the Washington Post. The Post writes, the partnerships let police automatically request the video recorded by homeowners' cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company's millions of internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said.

officers don't receive ongoing or live video access and homeowners can decline the requests. Ring is owned by Amazon. Next up, we'll feature problematic women where they discuss Planned Parenthood and the end of the adversity score on the SATs. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight for conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous.

But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. Welcome to a brand new edition of Problematic Women. I'm Warren Evans from The Daily Signal, and guest hosting with me today is Innes Stetman, Senior Policy, analyst at the Independent Women's Forum. Welcome, Anez. Thanks for having me. It's great to be sitting in for Kelsey this week. Big shoes to fill. Also joining me today is Romina Bacha, like a robot doing the cha-cha, my colleague at the Heritage Foundation and director of the Grover M. Herman Center for the federal budget. Excited to be here. On today's problematic women,

is your favorite band teaming up with Planned Parenthood to push a false narrative? Plus, conservatives win a kind of victory as the College Board drops their planned affirmative action addition to the SAT score, the adversity score, and a new poll shows a gulf of generational disagreement on the most basic things of life, patriotism, God, and what it means to be an American. And as always, we'll be crowning our problematic woman of the week. Each week on problematic women, we sort through the news to find stories that are of particular interest to conservative leaning or problematic women. Those whose views and opinions are often excluded by those on the so-called feminist left. So if you are a problematic woman or just like

problematic women or like to march to the beat of your own drum, please consider supporting problematic women by leaving a review or rating on iTunes, encouraging other people to subscribe. It really does make a huge difference for the podcast. Okay, to start us off, Plain Peronet has launched a new advocacy campaign called Bands Off My Body, where they're teaming up with musicians, so like get it like bands off my body, bands off my body. Not that clever, but unfortunately, they've signed 130 bands on the list, so your favorite band is probably on it.

According to the Hill, artists on the campaign include Lizzo, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, Beck, Billy Elish, Bonavere, John Legend, and even Casey Musgraves kind of surprised me. So check out the promo video. This is my body, my life, my voice, my truth, my future, my decisions. When we own our bodies, we are powerful. We are free.

When we have control, we thrive. We won't go back. We won't tolerate this assault on our health and our rights. And that means access to safe and legal abortion. Now is the time to unite. Get your bands off my body. According to Billboard, the goal of the bands off campaign is to raise awareness about restrictive anti-abortion measures passed in several states over the last year and gather 500,000 signatures on an online petition opposing limits on abortion rights in time for this 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January.

Planned Parenthood also plans to spread the word at music festivals with the help of supporting musicians. So do you think this is a smart PR move kind of teaming up with musicians? for Planned Parenthood? I don't know about you, but I'm just so sick of hearing what ill-informed celebrities have to say about politics, including when they're on my own side, right? Look, it was fun to watch Kanye pop off in the media, but, I mean, does anybody really turn to Kanye for very informed policy discussion? No, I'm really tired of this.

And I think a lot of Americans are, right? Exactly this kind of ad where you have a series of celebrities with some nice music in the background. They look into the camera and they tell you, you should care about this because I'm a celebrity. I just, I don't know, maybe it's a personal thing, but I don't really think that this is going to move the needle in America at all, particularly as we see the right, increasingly realizing that some cultural institutions like Hollywood are 99% left. They're not going to take what a celebrity says seriously about politics because they realize they're coming from a very, very

different place than, you know, the average Republican or even the average American. And I wanted to play that clip because it really just frustrates me the way that the plan of permanent always sets up this narrative. They don't want to actually. talk about abortion. It's either you support abortion or you hate women. And like this whole idea that it's, you know, it's my body and I get to do what I want. Like no conservatives are telling them what they can and can't do with their body. They just can't kill anybody. That's not the only kind of crazy celebrity news we have on problematic women this week. Taylor Swift had a great night at the VMAs on Monday, taking home awards ranging from song in the summer to song for good and power anthem.

But I think the most interesting moment of the night came during her acceptance speech for music video of the year, which she won for, you need to calm down. Have you guys ever heard that song? Yeah, it's unfortunately kind of catchy. You need to calm down. In the lyrics, it's supporting the Equality Act, which is a House Democrat sponsored bill that would elevate sexual orientation and gender identity to protect the classes in federal anti-discrimination law. and it has lyrics in it such as, why are you mad when you could be glad, glad spelled like G-L-A-A-A-D-P-Pro Gay Rights Organization. It also has lyrics that say, you need to just take several seats and then try to restore the peace and control your urges to scream about all the people you hate because shade never made anyone less gay,

which I don't know if it makes it much sense. But let's go back to the acceptance speech and hear what Taylor had to say. This is a fan-voted award. want to say thank you to the fans because in this video, several points were made. So you voting for this video that you want a world where we're all treated equally under the law. It's a petition and there still is a petition. Basically just says we all deserve equal rights under the law. Half a million signatures, which, which is five times the amount that it would need to warrant a response from the White House. So you can't hear it, but at the end, she's kind of tapping her wrist.

like it's a watch indicating that she's waiting on the White House to respond. Well, the White House did go ahead and respond on Tuesday with a statement from Deputy Press Secretary, Jed Deere, according to CNN Entertainment, quote, the Trump administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all. However, the House passed bill in its current forum is filled with poison pills that threaten it to undermine parental and conscious rights. Deere said when asked about Swift's comments, just like with the planned parent stuff, you know, you're either a hater or you support, far-left policies, right? I mean, so let's talk a little bit about the Equality Act. And I actually will throw in here the Equal Rights Act, which is also thrown around in a lot of these discussions. Equal Rights Act pertains to women. It's a constitutional amendment. And these things, like,

they don't sound like anything that anyone would want to be against, right? Who wants to be against equality? But they have some really disturbing consequences. So for example, we're talking about the Equality Act. Canada actually has something very similar to the Equality Act, which would be elevating gender identity to federal civil rights law, right, saying that it would be impossible to discriminate or illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. For starters, that would mean that all public facilities would cease to be allowed to have male and female restrooms. We're including here public schools, locker rooms. I mean, that's a pretty radical consequence for something that sounds really nice on paper. But actually, one step further in Canada, we've seen

in countries where laws like this have been implemented, there's an, and I, I'm sure a lot of you have heard of this controversy. There's a person named Jessica Yenive over in Canada who is going around to women's salons. And she's requesting a nether region's wax. Now, I say she, but Jessica Yenive is, in fact, a biological male with biological male parts. So in Canada, there are a series of human rights cases being kicked up through the courts based on whether or not a woman, a waxer, has the right to refuse. to touch male genitalia. So, I mean, this is the kind of extreme thing

that the Equality Act could bring to the United States. So it sounds very gauzy, very nice. Like, yes, we want, of course, we want to treat people equally. Of course, we don't want people to be discriminated against. But that's an extremely radical solution. And as the White House statement says, we'll undermine conscience rights,

will undermine the ability of people to live out, not even just their faiths, but their common sense or how they see the reality of the world. as it pertains to biological men and biological women. So, I mean, I think you're totally right, Lauren. It's always framed as you're in favor of these radical left policies or you're a hater or a bigot or you don't like women or you don't like people who are different from you or however else they want to put it.

But then when you actually start bringing out some of these policies, there are real consequences here that are definitely worth having a discussion about as a society. I just want to share a quick story that I thought is fitting and funny, perhaps. In April, I was in Stockholm, Sweden, and I went to a museum where there were two bathrooms next to each other that clearly at one point had been male and female bathrooms, but now were both unisex bathrooms. And I sat outside for a little while. It was hilarious just watching people trying to figure out which bathroom to use.

And they were self-selecting. Like, women would go into the bathroom where they just saw women walk into, and they would avoid the one where they just saw a guy walk into, and guys would pretty much do the same thing. So despite the best intentions, there's still a preference for. for people to at least use the facilities with their own gender. Oh, and this is something actually suffragettes fought for, right? So early women's rights activists fought for segregated restrooms in public because then the facilities were functionally all male in public spaces.

And part of what the response from folks back then was basically, you know, if you're outside of the house and in public, it's a man's world and you're going to have to use the bathroom with us. And so that was actually part of women's rights initially, the push for women's rights is the right to actually access sex-segregated facilities for your own comfort. There is a real tension here, I think, between these attempts to accommodate people who feel their transgender and women's safety and spaces for women only to change to be separated from men, and especially when we're talking about kids, right?

Because if the Equality Act were to pass, public schools in America would not be able to prevent boys from going into the girls' lock. There are a lot of parents in this country who would rightfully be disturbed to hear that their, I don't know, 11-year-old girl is changing and stripping down in a locker room next to a biological boy and seeing biological boy parts. This is something that parents are rightfully up in arms about when it was initially implemented under the Obama administration in some public schools. And so, again, sounds very gauzy and nice, but what does it actually mean in practice? And I don't see Taylor Swift talking about that, by the way. And it means biological men can participate in women's sports. It means that if a parent decides to not allow their child to use puberty blockers, they would be breaking the law because they're violating their rights.

This one bill has so many overarching effects on society. And yeah, it's great to say, like, I want equality, but it doesn't promote equality. And I just think of all of Taylor Swift's fans who they're just hearing these good things and they go along with it. don't understand these consequences. Well, and conservatives don't understand. I think we're starting to, but for a long time, I think conservatives focused on our political victories, right? The Reagan era victories, we cut taxes, we won the Cold War, right?

And we focused on those political victories. But Reagan himself said in his farewell speech, right, traditionally presidents give warnings. And his warning was exactly this. He said, we have to be careful about the fact that our cultural institutions, are slipping away, that we're no longer teaching an informed patriotism in our schools, which we'll get to later in this program, that we're no longer making movies in Hollywood that promote patriotism, that promote a positive view of America, that help bring us together, give us some kind of common feeling as common citizens.

And that doesn't mean that, obviously, Reagan was not suggesting that the government take over Hollywood and tell them what movies to make, but he was noting that cultural institutions matter. The fact that Taylor Swift is out there promoting the Equality Act, there are a lot of fans who are going to listen to Taylor Swift, and they're never going to have the conversation that we're having, right, about the consequences of this act. But they're going to be in favor of it. They're going to call the representatives and try to push to have it passed based on a very top level, and I would argue misleading understanding that some celebrity is feeding to them. So, I mean, these cultural things do matter. And I'm glad that conservatives are finally waking up to.

the fact that, yes, we have to talk about this. We have to counter these narratives that are out there in the broader culture. It's not just policy and bills on Capitol Hill that matters, these kind of cultural institutions. They matter to. And I'm so grateful for our listeners, not only when they give us five-star reviews, but also we need your help to go and be having these conversations, because of all your friends here are Taylor Swift, just like Annas mentioned, that they're going to believe it. But you can stop that narrative. And don't be that person and just, you know, as soon as Taylor Swift comes up, just talk about how terrible she is, but have thoughtful conversations and kind of challenge your friends on their beliefs and have them justify it. And not only will it, A,

help you think through what you really believe, maybe they won't change their mind that minute, but in a week or two weeks, it'll kind of hit them like, oh, wow, this is really big. This isn't just, I'm going to feel good today and we're going to, you know, have this really great music video and you're being too loud, but like really make a difference. Finally, in celebrity news, billionaire David Cook passed away last week at the age of 79. He was known as a libertarian philanthropist and political activist who contributed over $1.3 billion to public policy institutes, medical organizations, cultural institutions, and more. So you think when someone who spent so much of his life working for what he thought was a better America, donating money to so many different types of charities,

both political and non-political, we would be able to put aside politics and take a moment to really honor this man's life. Nope. Comedian Bill Maher said on his show, right after he died, expletive that starts with the letter F, him, I'm glad that he's dead. Comedian Michael Ian Black said in a tweet, in Lou Flowers, the family of David Koch requests that mourner simply purchase a Republican politician, obviously referencing the amount of money that the Koch spent in politics. And actor George Taked said in a tweet, no person should be able to use his billions to influence politics. So many of our problems stem from huge sums of money being funneled to campaigns. Let us take the passing of one of the

Koch brothers as a moment to reflect on the terrible impact such money has on our nation. What do you guys think? Is it right to politicize his death right away? I personally am mourning the death of David Koch. I think he has done tremendous things for the Liberty Movement for America. He's well known for donating to cancer research, hospitals, funding the culture and arts. Coke Industries is a very successful private company. They have an extremely good environmental record. They keep winning awards by the Environmental Protection Agency. And so much of what I saw just after his passing made me really sad and angry because there was a lot of misinformation and there was a lot of hate out there.

But it also gives others the opportunity to set the record straight and talk about really all the good that David Koch has done. So maybe I'll be in the minority here for this problematic women discussion. I don't really mind comedians ripping on David Coke, especially somebody like, like Bill Maher, who has made a career out of saying politically incorrect things in opportune times. And, you know, I'll say this for Bill Maher. Like, unlike a lot of his fellows on the left, he actually believes in free speech consistently and fights for free speech. And look, like, that's his brand of comedy.

Not everyone has to enjoy it, but that's kind of his brand. It actually disturbed me more to see, quote-unquote, serious journalists. Taking a hack at David Koch rather than writing a, you know, balanced obbit for him. balanced obituary. You saw all these obituaries kind of really denigrating his work. And as you said, Romina, if they didn't like his political work, fine. The guy donated millions and millions of dollars to cancer research. I mean, most of the institutions for the arts in New York are funded by David Koch, including the Lincoln Center.

He was a big fan of paleontology and dinosaurs. So a lot of the natural history museums and cities around the country have had a lot of money from David Coke, money that, as you point out, Romina, he and his company made in the free market, honestly, not by taking it from other people. And he could have sat on that money, but he decided to give back and donate to so many charitable institutions. And it does really show where you can't, you can't disagree with the left about anything, right? You are, you are canceled if you disagree with the left about anything.

Because David Koch was not a Trump Republican. For example, they didn't spend their money trying to elect Trump himself. and they were also very much in favor of free immigration, open borders, a number of libertarian priorities that were absolutely at odds with the current Republican Party, but they believed in free markets. And that was enough to sort of make the left really dump on the guy directly after he died. They could have used that opportunity to highlight some of the work he had done that actually agreed with them. But there's really this culture out there on the left that I think is damaging where it's,

If you disagree on anything, and to loop it back to Bill Maher, I mean, Bill Maher is a victim of us himself, right? If Bill Maher disagrees with the mainstream left on free speech or on the behavior of Islamic countries, for example, he is one of those folks who brings up the fact that the incredible illiberalism in Islamic countries, he gets a lot of flack from the left of doing so. So I just think that the larger problem here is our inability to actually sit down and have conversations. so we definitely silo people into their tribes when we can't have a civil discussion, when merely holding one bad opinion is cancelworthy. I think that's a really dangerous precedent. And David Koch is far from the first victim of this, and he won't be the last, I think. All right.

With that, I'm going to transfer real quick to a little ad read here. Each week, my employer, Independent Women's Forum, has the She Thinks podcast, which brings you fresh, relevant content in a fun way without the politically correct nonsense. On She Think substance and style supersede political spin. Led by my charismatic colleague, Beverly Hallberg, the She Thinks podcast features some of the country's top women conservative leaders and independent thinkers. Independent Women's Forum is known for championing women's rights to be heard and respected. Without the crutch of female victimhood, espoused by the mainstream media,

special interests and the Hollywood elite. Check out what all the buzz is about by subscribing to the She Thinks podcast wherever you get your podcast or visit IWF.org. If you enjoy problematic women, I think that you'll definitely enjoy Beverly Harlberg and she thinks from IWF. Some good news this week, the college board, the company that runs the SAT and the AP tests, among many, many other testing opportunities, has decided not to move forward with including diversity scores as part of SAT testing. So according to the Wall Street Journal, the original tool called the Environmental Context Dashboard combined about 15 socioeconomic metrics from a student's high school. and neighborhood to create something college admissions officers called an adversity score. However, unfortunately, they're not totally abandoning the idea of ranking people by their racial and economic backgrounds.

The Wall Street Journal article also mentioned that the new system is being developed called The Landscape that is designed to help colleges compare an applicant's test scores to those of other students in their high school and beyond. It also aims to give a picture of the quality of the school and relative wealth and stability of the neighborhood. So look, college has already taken to account where applicants went to school, any adversity they might have experienced their lives. That's what college essays are for. This is definitely something that every admissions board takes into account.

They know that the opportunities are not exactly the same in downtown Detroit as they are in, you know, Ritzie suburb of the Bay Area. They're aware of that inequality and they take into account. But I don't know, adding this in did raise a huge backlash, right? You are literally ranking people on a test by racial and socioeconomic qualities. And that, I mean, that really seemed to be contrary to treating people equally, right, to a meritocratic system that doesn't take into account background, that doesn't take into account all the things that maybe we ought not to be paying attention to exactly in a meritocratic system, right? What do you think about this? Lauren, how do you think that we can take into account a totality of a student's experience that might genuinely reflect, right? For example, something like not having AP classes available in the high school that they were zoned to attend.

How do we take into account those factors in a fair way, but not reduce such a sort of a bean counting score like the SAT proposed with its adversity model? Well, I don't even know if it's the college board's place to be kind of standardizing this. I think it should be up to each individual college to be deciding this. And I think essay questions are really great. Tell us how you were raised. Tell us actual adversity that you've had to overcome. And that way students can be honest and tell these personal stories. And it's not a number.

It's not a location. It's that student. Schools are already doing this. There aren't a lot of universities left that are taking pure SAT score added to the GPA. And part of that is for very real reasons, right? we don't know, oftentimes in college admission boards, don't know what a 4.0 means in one school versus a 4.0 in another school, right? So California, for example, has this policy where the top 10% of graduates of all public high schools are eligible to, they must be accepted at one of the UC system schools. And that's an attempt to balance those things.

And I'm not saying it's the best way to do it, but it's an attempt to balance those things to say that, you know what, being at the top 10% of your school, whether that what that looks like in different neighborhoods might look totally different, but that is a measure of studiousness, of hard work, of, you know, academic achievement. And so that, I think, is a way, and again, I don't really want to fully endorse those that have there are problems with the California plan. But it is one way to look at some of these factors that go into, you know, whether or not somebody had the same opportunities to produce the kind of scores that somebody else. might have. But again, as you said, I mean, colleges are already looking at this. And in fact,

I would argue they're looking at it too much. There have been, a lot of states have passed, including California, have passed laws preventing their public universities and their private universities from taking race into account. Because that's what this boils down to, unfortunately. It's all fun in games and we can have this very nuanced discussion about what factors go into producing a student's academic record. But at the end of the day, race is a really blunt tool for that, right? It's not the case that all black students had disadvantaged backgrounds, right? And all white students had, you know, completely easy, great school on the corner sort of experiences.

And that's why this does have to be more of an individual thing, in my opinion. This really has to be part of the admissions process of getting to know a student and seeing how they'll fit into the student body. and what kind of academic record. Let's talk for a minute about affirmative action. We've been talking about this in a sort of nuanced way, but is affirmative action just a really blunt tool? Or is it necessary as Sandra Day O'Connor, the late Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor said,

it's necessary for a little while in order to correct for the discrimination of the past, the very real discrimination of the past. What do you guys think? Well, I think it finds just a new group to discriminate against. I mean, Asian Americans are the people who they are a minority, it, but they're hurt the most. They have the highest test scores, so their students have the hardest time getting into these colleges. I think people should be surrounded by diversity, whether that's

diverse opinions, diverse cultures, but I think forced diversity never works. Affirmative action while having kind of good intentions behind it just can just passes the buck on racism and racial profiling. And there's some numbers to back that up, right? So we have numbers in in some states where you have before and after the state banned affirmative action. And you do see numbers of African American students slip a little bit. But interestingly, for example, in the UC system, you actually saw numbers at, for example, UC Berkeley slip a little bit, but numbers at other universities in the middle tier of the UC system rise up, right,

suggesting that there was maybe a better academic match going on. But actually, the biggest sea change in the numbers that is visible before and after getting rid of affirmative action is, in fact, in the numbers of Asian students. It's not actually the numbers of white students held fairly steady. So this is not a matter of sort of privileged white people taking the spots of disadvantaged black people. In fact, often what's happening is a lot of those spots that are being opened up or going to first generation Asian Americans where they have a culture, a lot of these, depending on what country, and there's a lot of, obviously, there's a lot of cultural variation.

But there is this culture of really studying, working hard. I mean, I know that in the past Jewish families had a similar thing. There was a quota instituted because so many Jewish families were sending their kids to universities. They didn't want to have such a high level of Jewish students at the university, so they had a hard cap. There was a certain number of slots for Jewish students and no more. Affirmative action actually has, we've seen. and the numbers does a similar kind of hard cap on Asian enrollment in elite universities.

So you see that the Asian enrollment in these universities is climbing over time. Affirmative action gets implemented and it kind of levels off and it stays at a steady rate when and before it had been climbing up. And this is actually the subject of a lawsuit. There are Asian students who did not get in to Harvard and they are suing Harvard saying that their spots by all meritocratic tactics and admission tactics were token by other people. because of affirmative action. So this is actually something that is going to play out in the courts.

It'll be really interesting to see what happens there. All right. Well, we will keep you updated with that. But we need to take a quick break. But when we come back, I think it will be my favorite segment of this entire show. We're going to crown our problematic woman in the week. And hint, she is sitting in the room with us. But before we do take a break, I want to tell you about one of my favorite podcasts.

And if you're like me and sometimes get overwhelmed by this 24 to 7 news cycle, one of the best ways to kind of keep up with it is the daily signal. podcast. It's every day it brings to the top news of the day, co-hosted by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. They interview lawmakers, authors, Heritage Foundation experts like Romina, and others on the most impolicy debates in America today. If you're a conservative who wants to be on top of the news and in the know, make sure you check out the Daily Signal podcast available every weekday morning. Well, now on to one of the best parts of our show, we are going to crown our problematic woman in the week. And it is Romina Bacha. Romina.

And can you let us know why we're crowning you problematic women the week? You know, I... Maybe, maybe is it because I became a U.S. citizen on Saturday? Q. Lee Greenwoods proud to be of American. Yes, indeed. I'm really proud to be an American because I've lived in this country for over 15 years. So I took a really long time deciding on this. And I'm so happy now that it's done.

And yeah, it was an... It was a fantastic ceremony. I got to swear the oath. We pledged allegiance to the flag. We sang the anthem. It was a great day. We're going to get into kind of what it means to be an American, but very quickly, can you kind of talk about what the process of becoming a citizen actually is?

Yeah. So it's different for everybody, depending on how they came here. I initially came on a student exchange visa. I met the love of my life, my husband, of now 30. years and so after we got married it took about two years for me to get my permanent residency or green card if you will it was actually quite scary because it was very clear that there were some bureaucratic mishaps that were happening at the time USCIS and that whole process wasn't yet online so was all paperwork

and it made me shy away from engaging with them soon again because I just didn't feel like the process was very smooth or easy it was rather complicated but then Once I finally had my green card, the initial one was good for two years. Then I had to apply for a permanent green card. That one was good for 10 years. And that just recently expired. So about a year ago in August of 2018, I decided to apply for U.S. citizenship. And now everything's online.

It was much easier to do. They had told me the process would be done by September of 2019. And we were actually a month early, which I was really surprised by, and I'm glad that it happened that way. I was worried in January when we had that long government shutdown that that could slow things down, but it didn't seem to have done that. So I'm all done now. Well, welcome, first of all, welcome, my fellow citizen. We're so glad to have you as one of us. So you have, because you've just chosen to become a citizen, you know, you have a unique perspective on what it means to be an American.

Could you maybe tell me how you would answer that question? So for me, becoming American is about joining this country and the idea and the American experiment that in America, the individual reigns supreme, but we're all bound together by common ideals, by common ideas and values that we share as Americans. And those are captured in the Declaration of Independence. And that's something I find really powerful. Growing up in Europe, it has a long history of people. people being subjects of kings and feudal lords and princes. And I think that's really shaped the mindset of the European people. We're still to this day.

They look to their governments for so many services and charity. The way you see in America where civil society is so strong and provides so many generous contributions to various organizations, you don't really see it in the same way in Europe because there's this expectation that government is going to take care of it. And that's what I love so much about America. It really puts the individual at the center of everything. And then as we interact in our communities, we shape civil society. And we fund the organizations and the projects and the programs that we support, that we believe in.

And then we can also hold those actors accountable. And I think that's an important part also. becoming an American, I now have the same constitutional rights as you all and all Americans do, which I didn't have before. But most importantly, I also have taken on responsibilities. And those responsibilities are to defend a constitution and to hold lawmakers accountable so that we can continue this wonderful American experiment where we can live together as free individuals associating with each other freely and respecting each other and our differences and the diversity that we have in this country.

And I just want to add one more point, which is this was actually my second naturalization. When I was 13, I was naturalized German because Germany, even though I was born in Germany, they didn't have birthright citizenship at the time. So I was born Italian. I didn't speak Italian. and then 13 years after my birth, I finally was naturalized German. But it always felt like I was an immigrant and a foreigner wherever I was, even in the country in which I was born.

And in America, it's really the first time where I feel like I'm at home. Like anybody can become American. And that's a beautiful thing. It is something that is really, I think folks who haven't spent a lot of time outside of the United States don't realize they really look at America as uniquely, for example, racist or xenophobic, when in reality, America is one of the most, if not the most diverse nation on the planet. And there has been traditionally this give and take in America. The give is we actually do recognize people as Americans.

My family, both my parents immigrated here. And they speak with heavy accents and people notice the accents. but they've never felt anything less than American because people don't treat them as less than American here. And as you said, in Europe, that's just not the case. And a lot of, I mean, you can be third generation in a lot of European countries speak only the language, know only the culture. And still, if your last name is different,

or if they see that you come from a different country, your family comes from a different country three generations back, America is actually one of the most welcoming cultures, I think, to people from all over the world. But you talked a lot movingly, I might add, about what it means to be an American that because we do come from all over, we have to cleave to these principles and the Declaration of Independence. There has to be something that binds us together, that e pluribus unum, right? There has to be something that binds us together. But increasingly, it seems like there's a deep gulf opening up not only between the left and the right, but also between generations.

So there's a new Wall Street Journal poll that came out a couple days ago that shows. a huge gap between millennials and Gen Ziers on the one hand and then older generations on the other on things like the existence of God, whether or not patriotism as an important quality to have, whether or not they want children and then self-fulfillment. These are the biggest gaps. But for our purposes, I think the most important one is nearly 80% of people between the ages of 55 and 91 said being patriotic is important to them. All only 42% of millennials in Generation Z, or those age 18 to 38, said the same. Less than half of people our age, we're all in that age range, say that it's important to them to be patriotic about this country. And, you know, look, we all understand that being patriotic doesn't mean we never criticize this country.

And in fact, we criticize it and try to change policies to make it better. But I fear, and I wonder if you feel the same way, I fear that we are, losing that allegiance to the founding documents, you know, particularly in the light of, for example, the New York Times 1619 project, the increasing academic push on the left to try to not only to acknowledge the black marks of American history, but to place them at the center of our founding and to put a lie to the ideals that you say you swore allegiance to when you joined this country as a citizen. I mean, how can we continue when we're from all over the place? What will we find in common if we can't find commonality in that?

I do think that is a really important idea to revive, and that is the idea of American exceptionalism. America is truly exceptional in a wonderful way, and it's a beacon of freedom for a people all over the world. Just look at what has been happening in Hong Kong and the protests that have been going on there. And as they were protesting to try and gain more freedom, they would wait. the American flag. And that is so powerful, that idea. And I think it might be really helpful for many Americans to, if they need a reminder of what makes America great and why America is so exceptional, to try and attend one of these naturalization oath ceremonies, they're open to the public. They're happening all over the country. Anybody can go. And what we saw in the room on

Saturday where I was a part of the ceremony, there were 69 individuals from 41 different countries. And I didn't know they were going to do this, but I thought it was really special. They celebrated every country by reading the name of the country. And we went all the way from Argentina to Zimbabwe. And when they called your country, you would stand up. And they said, it's okay. You can clap. You can celebrate where you are from as we're all joining together here to become Americans here in this

room today. And I think that maybe some of the, the criticism we're seeing, especially from young people, is that they're being so inundated, especially from the left about America in a negative way and not celebrating that heritage and celebrating the values that America has. And I wonder if some of it has to do with, especially the left that is becoming more attracted to socialism, recognizing that the American idea, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, they're really incompatible with progressive goals. And especially when we're talking about trying to institute socialism in this country, the founding documents are very robust against that.

They protect individual rights, which in a communist society, in a communal socialist society, are not respected. that they are trampled. And maybe that has something to do with it. I'm very worried about the left's onslaught on America with these socialism, with these ideas of socialism. Coming from Germany, I met many people from, I was lucky to grow up in Western Germany,

but I met very many people from Eastern Germany and the stories they would tell about what life was like. Really troubling. The one thing I remember so well, maybe because I was really young when I was hearing these, but when they had them. bananas, when like bananas became available, like people just standing in long lines for hours at the store. And then I think about every time I go to the grocery store here in America in the United States and bananas are like 34 cents. It's just incredible. So Romina, we're almost

out of time, but I just want to ask you, how did you celebrate gaining your citizenship? So the day off, I was really quite overwhelmed with the entire ceremony. So my husband and I took a quiet afternoon. We actually, we drank some beers. We played. We played. played cornhole, and we made a nice fire, had s'mores, and he made me a lovely dinner of ribs and mashed potatoes. It felt very American. That is very American. And that's it for today. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please use a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow.

The Daily Signal podcast is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound designed by Lauren Evans and the Leah Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.