VIDEO: Legal Immigrants Warn About America’s Future

/in , , , , , /by

This video is from Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. (PLIUSA), which is a grassroots organization composed of legal immigrants who cherish American Values and America’s founding principles. As first generation immigrants, they personally lived through nations ruled by socialist, authoritarian, or anarchistic regimes. They have been there and do not want to go back there!

WATCH:

ABOUT PATRIOTIC LEGAL IMMIGRANTS USA, INC.

Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. (PLIUSA) is a grassroots 527 organization founded by Mr. Yukong Zhao, Mr. Agustin Blazquez, Mr. Jose Castillo, Ms. Sendra Dorce, Dr. Ajay Kathori, Mr. James Sutton, Ms. Stacy Yuan and other leaders in the legal immigrant community nationwide.

©Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Dark Winter? What Could Biden have Meant?

/in , , , , /by

Do not miss Leo Hohmann’s latest post:

Bracing for a ‘DARK WINTER’

  • Are globalists using Covid as cover for their real post-election plans?
  • Should we expect the left to unleash a bloody cleansing of its political opponents?

Here are the opening paragraphs, but you must read it all.

After his stumbling performance in Thursday night’s debate, and the way in which his campaign seems to be hiding him from public view, it’s hard to imagine how Joe Biden wins the presidency on Nov. 3.

If Biden was seriously trying to win, he would be out on the campaign trail like President Trump, not in his basement.

The way Biden is acting, it’s almost as if he’s been told not to worry, the outcome is not going to be decided by vote tallies.

With that in mind, let’s think outside the box and examine some possibilities that may sound insane, until we detach ourselves from our normalcy bias.***

From this vantage point, all roads lead to the same dark place — a second coronavirus lockdown, indeed a harder lockdown than the first one.

And it could be accompanied this time by a coup d’ etat to remove Trump from office. Look for the establishment [deep state supported by deep media] to conjure up some false pretense to justify his removal despite the fact that he will win re-election on Nov. 3, fair and square.

All the signals are pointing to this. And the latest came from Biden himself.

During the debate, Biden held up his black mask, looked straight into the camera and said “We’re about to go into a dark winter.”

***As I explained in a post a couple of months ago  ‘normalcy bias’ has resulted in the deaths of millions throughout history. There is no downside to considering all of the possibilities for the coming weeks, months, and God forbid years, just don’t stress.  We are in God’s hands.

Now keep reading Hohmann’s dire warning!

Dark Winter

On June 22-23, 2001, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention Terrorism, hosted a senior-level war game examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland. (See also: Dark Winter Script •Article: Shining Light on Dark Winter)

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Malcolm Flex Explains How AOC Politicized Twitch

/in , , , /by

Malcolm Flex, with 56,000 Twitter followers, has recently produced a must-watch video. His tweet accompanying this video says “Don’t underestimate today’s political power players just because they aren’t playing the same game as you.”

https://twitter.com/Malcolm_fleX48/status/1318900394123317249

Flex leads off by saying “The paradigm is switching right now and it is switching so fast.” As an example he is referring to the new power of the Twitch platform as a political influencer, stating “Twitch is a hive for young minds, for young, unshapen, very bored minds.” In particular, he is referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s recent debut appearance as a player on Twitch, an appearance that attracted over 430,000 online participants.

In a 20 minute dialogue that should be required watching for every anti-socialist politician, strategist, and influencer in America, Flex explains how the anti-socialist movement is not recruiting the right young talent. He surveys the young players, from Chandler Crump to Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, and explains that while they are saying the right things, they lack the charisma to attract an army. He acknowledges the magnetism of the Hodge Twins, but reminds us that Keith and Kevin Hodge, at age 45, are a generation removed from the future voters that populate, for example, the Twitchosphere.

Displaying a knowledge of Twitch that shouldn’t, but does elude most political strategists, Flex marvels at the fact that AOC used Twitch not as a broadcaster, but as a player, to build a “simp army” (look it up – and don’t laugh, because they’ll all be voting in 2028). More generally, he observes that nobody holds a candle to AOC when it comes to branding.

As Flex warns, Twitch has now realized they can make money with political content. What if they go in the same direction as the other big platforms and censor or deboost conservatives? Twitch is owned by Amazon, so if they do, it should come as no surprise.

Malcolm Flex is a powerful new voice in anti-socialist politics.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fr. Michael O’Connor Preaches Truth to Joe Biden

/in , , , , , /by

Joe Biden is a “…an embarrassment to Catholicism…”

WATCH:

RELATED VIDEO: Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 

 

Please share these videos with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Texas Passes Law Banning Californians From Voting After They Move There

/in , , /by

AUSTIN, TX—To the relief of Texans across the state, Governor Greg Abbott has signed a law prohibiting escaping Californians from voting after they move to Texas. Experts say this will prevent the happy and prosperous slice of heaven from sliding into the endless despair and crushing poverty of leftist policy.

“Yeah, all you weirdo Californians are welcome to partake with us in this blessed land,” said Chuck Dillon, a local accountant who dresses like a cowboy. “Bring your music and your little girly men and your avocado toast, but please leave your godless heathen communism in California where it belongs!”

According to sources, emergency legislation was drafted after it was discovered that 97% of Californians favor destroying every small business on the planet and salting the earth where the businesses once stood. They also favor mandatory gay marriage and banning all country music to avoid hurting the ears of sea turtles.

“That goofy nonsense ain’t welcome here,” said local Republican representative Carlos Juarez San Juan, a local cowboy who wears a fancy suit.

Californians have marched on the state capital to demand their voting rights back, and have promised they’ll move on to Oklahoma after they finish destroying Texas.

RELATED POLITICAL SATIRE:

Trump Tries To Win Suburban Women By Starring In Series Of Romance Novels

Portland Erects Statue In Honor Of Antifa Rioters Who Tore Down All The Statues

Unhappy With Binary Choice Between God And Satan, People Demand Third-Party Candidate

The Official Babylon Bee Voters’ Guide

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved

Winning: Trump Walks Onstage Holding Hunter Biden’s Laptop

/in , , /by

NASHVILLE, TN—Tonight’s final presidential debate got off to a bit of a rough start for Joe Biden. When the debate began, and the two candidates walked toward their respective podiums, Biden looked over and noticed that President Trump was carrying his son Hunter’s laptop.

Sweat dripped from Biden’s brow as he answered the opening question. He stuttered a few times and took a couple peeks over at Trump, who was attempting to log into the laptop.

“Hey, he can’t do that!” Biden exclaimed, halfway through his mostly-confusing answer. “That’s cheating! That’s Russian disinformation!” Just then Biden got an idea and he smiled an evil smile. “Hey, this bozo doesn’t even know the password. How’s he going to get in? Gotcha Don! You’re finished!”

“Now, lets see here,” Trump said when it was his turn to speak. “What would Hunter Biden’s password be? ‘Crack is good’? No, that’s too easy. Let’s try ‘I love China,’ see if that works. YES! It worked! There it is America: ‘I love China.’ It’s right there in the password! Amazing.”

Trump continued on, and opened up the first file he noticed on the home screen. Trump’s eyes opened wide, and he shouted out in terror, dropping the laptop to the ground. He then reached under his podium for a trash can and began to vomit.

RELATED POLTICAL SATIRE:

With Mic Muted, Trump Corrects Biden With Tweets

Finally: Facebook Will Now Require Its Content Moderators To Watch ‘Monty Python And The Holy Grail’

Subaru Introduces Camera That Automatically Records Driver Melting Down About Trump And Uploads Video To TikTok

Progressive 5-Year-Old Claims Cookie Crumbs All Over His Face Are Part Of Russian Disinformation Campaign

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Even RBG Would Have (Probably) Supported Ted Cruz’s Common-Sense Constitutional Amendment Banning Court-Packing

/in , , , , , /by

The Amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists.

Even a few years ago, the idea that packing the Supreme Court would be a serious issue in a US election would have seemed absurd. But now, it is no exaggeration to say that the very independence of the judiciary branch of our federal government may be in jeopardy if “court-packing” proponents make gains in the November election.

So, it’s easy to see why some conservative senators might want to take court-packing off the table—permanently. Senator Ted Cruz has officially introduced a constitutional amendment permanently setting the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine. The amendment is co-sponsored by many of his colleagues such as Sens. Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, Roger Wicker, Kelly Loeffler, and Cindy Hyde-Smith.

If ratified, this constitutional amendment would make it impossible for a future president and Senate to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to cram it full of like-minded jurists who’d rubber-stamp their agenda. The Supreme Court has had only nine justices since 1869. Yet as written now, the Constitution does not specify the number of judges on the Supreme Court, so this kind of “court-packing” would be legal—even though it would be an assault on checks and balances and judicial independence.

Grappling with this threat is no intellectual exercise, though, because proposals to pack the Supreme Court are actually gaining traction among prominent elected officials:

Meanwhile, presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to rule out packing the Supreme Court. They continue to flirt with the radical proposal.

As I have previously explained for FEE.org, court-packing is a dangerous tactic that could put the country on the path toward authoritarianism:

It would erode the separation of powers that prevents government officials (of either party) from violating our rights. It subverts the highest level of the judicial branch to the whims of the executive and legislative branches. It removes a crucial check on the other branches and leaves the Supreme Court as little more than a red-stamp for the president’s agenda, no matter how authoritarian it may be.

The Founding Fathers purposefully enshrined the separation of powers into our system of governance. They knew that if one branch or official wields too much power, nothing prevents the slow slide into tyranny.

“If the Democrats pack the court, the GOP will respond in kind, as soon as they get the chance,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin has written. “The predictable result will not only be a loss of ‘credibility’ for the Supreme Court, but also the elimination of judicial review as an effective check on the other branches of government.”

“If the president can pack the court any time his or her party controls both houses of Congress, they can prevent the court from making decisions that curb unconstitutional policies they may wish to enact,” Somin continued. “It is no accident that court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy, recently used in such countries as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.”

Cruz and his colleagues are right to want to take this authoritarian measure off the table. No president or Senate—of any party—should be able to attack the independence of the judiciary branch and bring its check on their authority to heel.

“Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome,” the Texas senator said. “It is wrong. It is an abuse of power… a partisan assault on the Court.”

“For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary,” Cruz concluded.

This isn’t a partisan position. The late liberal hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly repudiated court-packing in an interview just a few years ago.

e number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'”

Ginsburg never specifically endorsed an amendment banning court-packing, but it seems reasonable to guess she might have supported one. This really is a trans-partisan issue; or at least, it should be.

It is an oversight that our Constitution does not set the number of justices in stone. It thus leaves the door open to such dangerous legislative proposals, even though they would undoubtedly endanger the system of checks and balances that the Constitution takes great care to establish.

In the past, the Senate legislative filibuster requiring a two-thirds majority would have likely blocked court-packing from passing. But it looks likely the filibuster will be eliminated after the November election.

Of course, there is a long, difficult path for any constitutional amendment to become law. Cruz and his colleagues’ proposal would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and then be ratified by at least 38 of 50 states.

But if even political leaders as ideologically disparate as Ted Cruz and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree that court-packing would be bad for America, then passing a constitutional amendment is surely not impossible.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Tech Censorship Is on a Dangerous Path

/in , , , /by

The Big Tech censorship by Jack Dorsey’s Twitter of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden is so egregious that I have to speak up. If there were any doubt, it is now clear that Twitter’s censorship system is set up to survey, capture, control, and manipulate the political narrative within this country.

Make no mistake, the mathematical parameters and algorithms that Dorsey’s team developed and implemented had this goal in mind. Despite what he and his company might have you believe, his frustration and anger are more likely related to getting caught, and the resulting public outrage, not the wanting of some algorithm.

Any remaining lines between social media companies and the political propaganda and covert influence world have been erased. Powerful men such as Dorsey and the other tech giants who control social media platforms are meddling in inflammatory issues to engineer and influence the outcome of the upcoming election.

Their efforts are a dangerous threat to our free society. It is hard to imagine a more insidious effort to subvert freedom of speech, expression, and the free flow of ideas, good or bad, than algorithms designed to shut down speech they don’t like.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The titans of social media, Dorsey at Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, lead their companies the way China does.

These men want to control what the public sees, which enables them to better monitor and, ultimately, influence every aspect of society and life. It is akin to China’s “free speech elite,” where only speech from certain individuals and of certain categories is permitted, all controlled by the [Chinese Communist Party].

Social media giants either don’t care or are simply too removed from reality in their gated Silicon Valley mansions to understand the long-term ramifications of their selfish and manipulative actions. In their tenure, the modern public square has evolved from having the right to free speech to the limited and controlled speech.

All of this is driven by goals to daily influence a person’s actions and decisions, whether it be to try a new diet trend or product, hold certain views, or take preferred actions. Now, these titans have been unmasked as wanting to control our thoughts.

Twitter’s censorship of the New York Post articles, which raise serious concerns about Hunter Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, is evidence that Big Tech has evolved into a twisted entity committed to polarizing society politically and silencing thoughts from anyone who supports the president or doesn’t subscribe to the left’s big government push.

The social media world has learned how to use its tools of influence in a negative way, targeting the young with items of envy–designer Nikes, expensive cars, plastic surgery—and driving a must-have sentimentality into a level of obsession. The misuse of such tools can cause anti-social behavior, depression, and other horrible consequences. People are being driven to irrational action to obtain what they want.

Weaponized, these same tools are effective in the mass influence of thought operations and polarization of political beliefs, intolerance, misinformation, and propaganda delivery. The result is the creation of an irrational hatred of President Donald Trump that has not only triggered but justified assaulting or shooting someone just for wearing a MAGA hat.

This must stop. Claiming Big Tech censorship and viewpoint discrimination are only intended to stop untruthful discourse is ridiculous and ends with these tragic outcomes.

As we move closer to stifling free speech and elevating only the viewpoints desired by the Silicon Valley elite, let us remember the words of James Madison:

Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they are misused by the minority. We can never lose sight of this because the moment we do will be the moment we cease to be free.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and host of “The Armstrong Williams Show,” a nationally syndicated TV program.

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.”

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Donald Trump Watch’ Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

/in , , , /by

This is one of the most shocking things you might see in this never-ending year from hell.

A mysterious group has made available the names and addresses of hundreds of thousands of Trump donors.  There can only be one reason for this—it is a target list! And, they want you to be afraid!

From Gateway Pundit: (Hat tip: Florida friend)

Mysterious “Donald Trump Watch” Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

Far left operatives created the Donald Trump Watch website recently to reveal local Trump donors in your community.

Users are able to punch in the address of any location in the country and a map will show you the name and address of any Trump donor in the area.

The website is using FEC data to target Trump voters and donors.

According to the website they provide the names and addresses of “Americans who Give Money to Support a Racist.”

[….]

The only reason for calling Trump a racist and doxing his supporters on-line is to let BLM and ANTIFA know where we live.

More here.

I looked for my name and it wasn’t there, but realized that it must be because I gave through the RNC. I did find friends!  It is real!

And, if they are successful in frightening patriots this time, it will have a chilling effect on anyone considering donating to a future America First presidential candidate.

Will be watching for a Tucker Carlson report on this!

Endnote: Don’t miss my post yesterday! Stay safe!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Is This the Real Reason They’ve Been Hidin’ Biden Before the Debate?

/in , , , /by

Joe Biden’s tendency to now go into seclusion before presidential debates has raised many an eyebrow. His handlers say that, as far as tonight’s event goes, they were simply preparing him to face President Trump, while some observers surmise he has been playing prevent defense and avoiding Bidengate-scandal questions. But there’s another possible explanation.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh noted a while back that Biden is rarely seen at night; in fact, his campaign has on certain days ended his appearances at 12 noon.

Aside from confirming that the septuagenarian is not a vampire (though his tax plan does reflect bloodsucker tendencies), this bizarre schedule suggests that he “tires easily and, by afternoon, is running on empty,” as American Thinker’s Andrea Widburg put it. Of course, this would be no surprise with a 77-year-old man who has suffered two cranial aneurysms and is enduring cognitive decline.

Limbaugh, however, took it further and theorized that Biden experiences a phenomenon known as “sundowning.” This “refers to a state of confusion occurring in the late afternoon and spanning into the night,” explains the Mayo Clinic, and “may affect people with dementia….”

The bottom line is that Biden and evenings just don’t mix well anymore. But here’s the problem:

The debate is in the evening — somewhat late — 8 p.m. at the debate site: Nashville, Tennessee.

So how can Biden rise to this nocturnal occasion? Here’s one possibility:

Alter the candidate’s sleep schedule so that he retires and wakes up late, really late, so he can peak for an 8 p.m. event. Of course, at least a few days would be necessary to acclimate to this change — oh, perhaps like the four days Biden was kept secluded before tonight’s debate.

Admittedly, this is all just a theory, and I could certainly accept it if an honest, competent geriatrician said it was untenable. But it does seem logical.

Assuming it’s correct, the schedule-alteration process could be facilitated by keeping Biden in rooms with full-spectrum lighting during his new waking hours so that, maybe, “sundown” for him is 12 a.m.

Whatever the case, the person managing Biden’s dementia has got to be the most competent individual aiding his campaign. After all, the ex-vice president couldn’t remember the name of the man he worked under for eight years, Barack Obama, in August. Yet he seemed very much like his old old self in the September 29 debate with Trump.

This could be because Biden is on dementia medication — Namenda, to be precise — as a rumor allegedly from an ex-campaign staffer holds. Or it could be that he was wearing a wire last month, as others contended, or that he got the debate questions in advance (à la Donna Brazile in 2016). Or it could be a combination of factors.

As for my theory, is it a stretch? Well, perhaps, but I won’t be too surprised if Joe’s opening words to debate moderator Kristen Welker are, “Good morning!”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Cultural Marxism 101

/in , , , , /by

Why are the Left and Right fighting over this term?

A lot of terms are thrown around today to describe extremist movements. One that keeps coming up is “cultural Marxism.” In an attempt to add clarity, political and historical accuracy, Clarion Project investigates the origin and current usage of the term and offers our suggestions going forward.

1. The modern term “cultural Marxism” morphed from its original expression, which was “cultural Bolshevism.” This latter term originated in Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s as a way to denounce the modernist movement in the arts and culture and was later used by the Nazis to claim that the Bolsheviks, the Marxist revolutionary movement in Russia, wanted to subvert the Germany values of family and national identity as well as its traditions in music, art and intellectual ideas.

However, the term “cultural Bolshevism” in Germany was also fundamentally used as an antisemitic canard based on the conspiracy theory that the Jews were behind the 1917 communist revolution in Russia. This canard was aided by the 1920s’ global circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a made-up document published in Russia in 1903 that purported to describe a secret Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination. (To this day, Far-Right circles continue to believe that communism is a Jewish conspiracy.) In reality, by December 1917, only five of the 21 members of the Communist Central Committee were Jews.

2. Even though the term originated as an antisemitic Nazi trope, most people using it today are unaware of its origins or implied meaning. They certainly are not using it as an antisemitic slur. For example, celebrated thought-leader Jordan Peterson uses the term “cultural Marxism” in a context completely different from its origins. Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News platform, also popularized the term despite being Jewish himself.

A more accurate representation of the use of this term by the above figures and similar conservative thinkers would probably be “neo-Marxism,” as this expression more accurately describes the aspirations of the specific demographic that favors the uprooting of our existing systems.

In its most extreme, the program advocated by this demographic is based on Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto, which outlines the core goal of communism: the abolishment of private property as a means to bring about a classless society (in our day and age, this would be called an “anti-racist” society as per critical race theory).

This chapter of the Manifesto includes a call for the abolishment of the family, as families are viewed as a mechanism of exploitation and a means to capitalism’s ends.

The official Black Lives Matter website advocated a number of these classic Marxist ideologies found in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto in their “What We Believe” page, including the goal of “disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” The page, which has since been taken down by the group, also provided biographies of the movement’s founders, who describe themselves as “trained Marxists.”

3. The Far-Left charges that the term “cultural Marxism” is used by the Far-Right — especially white supremacists — to slander those who believe in the “social justice movement.”

For example, the Left-wing site Fair writes,

What does cultural Marxism mean for the far right? In the modern iteration, in spaces like Breitbart or Infowars, it is the belief that a failure by communists to topple capitalism through worker revolt has led to a “Plan B” to destroy Western society from the inside. By tearing down the gender binary, de-centering Christianity values, championing the weak over the privileged and creating a multicultural society, revolutionaries have unanchored traditional Western order. Everything from gay rights to Muslim immigration is, in the language of the far right, part of a plot to finish the job that radical worker organizing could not.

Suffice it to say, this is a most paranoid fantasy. Most Marxists don’t speak in these terms, and people who do advocate for immigration, multiculturalism or secularism do so out of a certain regard for human and civil rights. But the far right still obsesses that this is a historical cultural struggle.

This group also points to the fact that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik invoked “cultural Marxism” in his manifesto. In 2011, Breivik went on a killing spree in which he murdered 77 people, the majority of whom were teenagers at a Workers’ Youth League summer camp.

4. While it would nice to have a static, agreed-upon definition of “cultural Marxism,” even this would probably not resolve the controversy over the term, considering its antisemitic origins. What may be the best solution is to pivot our use of language around all current discussions of Marxism to the far more specific and accurate phrase “neo-Marxism.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Lesson in How Not to Fight Antisemitism

From Street Thugs to the High-Brow Salon Circles, the Right to Free Speech Is Increasingly Under Attack

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Our Institutions Are Failing Us Again — Hunter Edition

/in , , , , /by


The biggest issue regarding the Hunter Biden laptop imbroglio may not be the actual contents  and their meaning — as dangerous and potentially criminal as those are. Instead, it may be ongoing misconduct at the top levels of the FBI — an enormous threat — and the abandonment of the American people by institutions such as the media and some of America’s largest corporations.

If the contents on the laptop are true, in any normal time Joe Biden would have to drop out under the cloud of a criminal investigation and raging controversy. And the thing is, we should know if they are true, and I’m certain the FBI already does. Here’s why:

• The FBI has had the computer since December. They could have and probably did look at the receipt at the computer store to see when it was dropped off for repair to determine if the computer tech is credible. That would be 101.

• They could have, and probably did, ask the manufacturer who registered the laptop’s serial number when it was originally bought.

• They could have, and probably did, determine which retailer the manufacturer shipped the computer to and then asked the retailer for the sales receipt and the credit card, if one was used.

• They could have, and probably did, check fingerprints and DNA samples on the laptop, to determine whose they are.

• On the contents of the laptop, the FBI has sophisticated computer forensics — far more than they would need for something not wiped — and could determine in hours the source of the emails to see if they are legit. They probably did.

Like The Revolutionary Act on Facebook

None of those bullets should be in the least way controversial. Basic FBI investigative work.

Those steps will show if Hunter bought it and used it and if the information is real. The FBI could accomplish all of this in less than a week. Possibly in 24 hours. They’ve had the laptop since December. Either they did none of this, even knowing why it was delivered to them, or they did it and have told no one. Either of those scenarios is unacceptable and suggests there is a whole lot more house-cleaning that needs to go on at the FBI.

The only way around those two options is if a grand jury has been impaneled regarding the contents that we do not know about. But that seems likely to have been concluded by now, also.

AG Barr should demand the information if he does not have it already and make it public to end all the mystery. If it is not legit, tell Americans. If it is, tell Americans and tell us where the investigation stands. Otherwise, it gives the very strong appearance that the FBI is once again trying to tamper with an election by either going after one candidate on baseless charges as in the Trump-Russia probe, or covering up for a different candidate on what could be a historic scandal. Again, if it is not solid, the FBI could end this whole thing.

If the laptop’s contents, specifically the emails, are genuine, then Joe Biden is hopelessly compromised. And provably so, unlike all the Trump-Russia non-story. However, if it is all Russian disinformation, or Chinese blackmailing, Americans should know that, too. This is so easy. I just want to know the truth. But boy, in Orwell’s 1984, it’s really hard.

Joe Biden was relatively poor financially when he was first elected. He’s now a very, very wealthy man with multiple luxury homes. He did not do that on the government salaries he earned. Did his wife come from wealth? Is there any known legitimate source of revenue that could account for his wealth? The FBI could conduct financial forensics to trace, at least recently, the source of the flow of money into Joe Biden accounts — particularly if the laptop contents prove to be legitimate.

So in my mind, this whole scenario swamps the problems of a compromised Joe Biden, which are serious and substantial. This goes to the potential for even more corruption spread deeper in the FBI, the media’s total abandonment of its role in holding powerful people accountable and social media’s black-out of the well-sourced New York Post stories and censoring or locking accounts of those who try to share it.

Unlike that other thing that is always being called systemic today, this really is a systemic breakdown of necessary institutions in a free country.

My greatest concern is that, once again, we may never find out the truth and no one will be brought to justice. Former, brief Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is sitting in jail right now for not disclosing income and for not registering as an agent for a foreign entity — both of which seem to apply to Hunter Biden, and possibly even to Joe Biden. Will this just be another example of two-tiered justice, where General Michael Flynn is financially ruined and would have gone to jail for actually doing nothing wrong, but those initiating spying on the duly elected President are making millions writing books and being contributors on national news outlets?

The systems appear to be functioning in support of the systems, not the American people. And that is truly a threat.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The 2020 Presidential Election: A battle between those who ‘Work For a Living’ and those who ‘Vote For A Living’

/in , , , , /by

Many have pontificated on the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election. Pollsters do their surveys, media pundits make their predictions and voters are confused by the issues on the ballot.

I believe the 2020 Presidential Election is truly a battle royal between those who “work for a living” and those who “vote for a living.”

Let me break this down into these two generic groups of those that work for a living and those who vote for a living. You may add to this list in the comments section below.

THOSE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING:

  1. Farmers.
  2. Factory workers.
  3. Construction workers.
  4. Small business owners.
  5. People who work for major corporations that actually produce a product or service, i.e. auto workers, painters, plumbers, etc. (excluding the social media tech giants).
  6. Entrepreneurs who start up a company and create jobs.
  7. Corporate CEOs and their staffs (excluding the tech giants who support those who vote for a living).
  8. Anyone who brings home a paycheck to feed, house and take care of their family.
  9. Members of our military, law enforcement, fire fighters and first responders.
  10. Doctors, nurses and healthcare providers.
  11. Those who actually have a job, regardless of the type, size of company or industry.
  12. Those who work and go to college or university and pay for their own education.
  13. Single fathers and mothers who work to support their families.
  14. Those who are successful because they work hard in their jobs whether they earn  a starting salary or are billionaires.

THOSE WHO VOTE FOR A LIVING:

  1. Government unionized employees.
  2. Members of Congress.
  3. Members of the various branches of government from the local, state up to the federal level, which includes the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.
  4. Members of teachers unions.
  5. Members of political campaigns, who later become unionized government employees or political appointees.
  6. Those who are on welfare.
  7. Those who receive Medicaid benefits.
  8. Those on government scholarships who attend colleges and universities.
  9. Those who don’t have a job and really don’t want a job. They are just satisfied to leech off of someone else, be it family, friends or the federal government.
  10. The criminal elements in government positions that profit while they are in public office at the expense of taxpayers.
  11. Career politicians who have never held a real job or had employees.
  12. Real criminals who are seeking government protection from deportation, no-bail policies and rioters.
  13. Anyone above the age of 18 who does not have a job and is living at home.
  14. Non-citizens who want to take away jobs from American workers.

Do you know people in these categories? Which category do you fit in?

THE CHOICES

2020 is all about jobs and the economy for those who work for a living. The more jobs and the better the economy the more likely they will vote for a candidate that is pro-working class. Those who want to work, want to go back to work and want to improve themselves will vote their with wallets and for protecting their livelihoods. As Bill Clinton stated, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

The more government intrusion into the economy, more government control of lives, more government regulation are the life blood that sustains those who vote for a living. This group is anti-working class, all though they will say that they are for the working class. Just like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did. Workers of the world unite! But once in power they become tyrants and dictators. History tells us so.

Today only one political party really cares about the working class, jobs and the economy. The other political party cares about getting votes by making promises but end up doing nothing once they are in power. Again, history tells us so.

Which party will you vote for on November 3rd?

©Dr. Rich Swier, Ed.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Unmarried Birth Rates and Fatherless Households: A National Crisis

/in , , , /by

In a recent television appearance, I discussed my appointment to a presidential commission called “The Social Status of Black Men and Black Boys.”

I called fatherless households America’s top domestic problem, a particularly severe phenomenon in the black community where nearly 70% of kids begin their lives in households with unmarried mothers.

I then received the following letter:

Dear Mr. Elder:

I saw your interview today. … I wanted to share some information about this.

In the summer of 1969, I was a first-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at a hospital in New Orleans. I do not know if you are familiar with Charity Hospital. Unfortunately, it was closed by Hurricane Katrina. Up until then, it was nicknamed ‘Big Mother’ because most black people in New Orleans were born there.

As a first-year obstetrical resident, I delivered 150 babies in three months. Only one of the mothers was married. Most of these girls were 11 years old. (Most people do not believe me when I tell them that and—unfortunately—I do not have written statistics to prove it.) Obviously, there was no way 11-year-olds could serve as parents to these babies. Grandparents tried to do the best they could, but they were often too busy working to provide for the extended family. These little girls quickly learned (and/or taught each other) that having babies brought checks from the Aid to Dependent Children Program in the state of Louisiana. They learned that if they needed more money, they simply had to bear another child. The problem with the [Aid to Dependent Children] Program was that these young mothers were denied the check if the father of the child lived with them. This never made any sense to me. Still, that was the rule.

A public health physician at Tulane Medical School, Dr. Joseph Beasely, recognized the problem and tried to do something about it. He worked out an arrangement with the heads of OB-GYN Departments at Tulane and [Louisiana State University] Medical Schools to set up a free clinic. We residents manned the clinic. We did free examinations, free sexual counseling (many of these mothers did not know where these babies came from), prescribed birth control pills, inserted IUD’s, etc. The program proved to be a huge success. Unfortunately, a group of black ministers shut us down after six weeks claiming we were committing ‘genocide.’

I do not know if you find this information useful, but I thought it addressed an aspect of what you were talking about. If you would like to discuss these matters in greater detail, please feel free to contact me.”

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

This problem is not confined to the black community. In 2006, the Manhattan Institute published a piece in its quarterly magazine, City Journal, by Heather Mac Donald called “Hispanic Family Values? Runaway Illegitimacy is Creating a New U.S. Underclass.” She wrote:

Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birth rate in the country—over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24% of white births and 15% of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births—68%—exceeds the Hispanic rate. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.

The problem, Mac Donald wrote, is worse among some subgroups:

The rate of childbirth for Mexican teenagers, who come from by far the largest and fastest-growing immigrant population, greatly outstrips every other group. The Mexican teen birth rate is 93 births per every 1,000 girls, compared with 27 births for every 1,000 white girls, 17 births for every 1,000 Asian girls, and 65 births for every 1,000 black girls. To put these numbers into international perspective, Japan’s teen birth rate is 3.9, Italy’s is 6.9, and France’s is 10. Even though the outsize U.S. teen birth rate is dropping, it continues to inflict unnecessary costs on the country, to which Hispanics contribute disproportionately.

In 1965, the percentage of blacks born out of wedlock was 25%, a number considered so alarming that it prompted then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write his controversial report “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” Today, the percentage of white children born out of wedlock is 28%.

If protesters are truly concerned about the condition of black and Hispanic urban Americans in particular, why the pathetic silence over the fatherless households, the principal reason for the very conditions they complain about?

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Larry Elder

Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. His latest book is “The New Trump Standard.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Happens on Campus Doesn’t Stay on Campus: Why Socialist Organizing Should Concern Us All

Amy Coney Barrett Has More Support Than 2 Other Trump Supreme Court Nominees, Poll Shows

San Francisco Aims to Strip the Names of Founders, Abraham Lincoln, and an Abolitionist From Public Schools

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.”

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: What it Means to Vote for Joe Biden

/in , , , /by

I’m trying to figure out why people will vote for former VP Joe Biden in the November presidential election. Certainly, many will vote due to their loyalty to the Democrat party, or perhaps they believe the spin of the Main Stream Media. Some will vote for Mr. Biden simply because they despise Donald Trump. Am I getting warm?

First and foremost, by voting for Joe Biden you believe he is mentally and physically fit to lead the nation. Let us not forget, in 1988 Mr. Biden suffered two brain aneurysms. Today his mental acuity is in question. If elected, he will be the oldest president to serve office. Let us also not forget the long list of his verbal gaffs which have become legendary. Nonetheless, you do not see a problem.

Beyond this, what else does it represent? It means you are willing to overlook the indiscretions of the Biden family and either deem them frivolous or blame the Republicans for the accusations, e.g.; Benghazi, the Russia Hoax, son Hunter’s business dealings in the Ukraine and China, Mr. Biden’s knack for plagiarism and exaggeration, and his “touchy-feely” approach to women.

Mr. Biden has served a long time in government, 47 years as senator from Delaware, and eight years as Vice President. His accomplishments during this time is less than stellar. Perhaps his crowning achievement as a senator was helping to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 (which is unpopular with blacks today), and the Violence Against Women Act (also 1994). As head of the Senate’s Judiciary committee he oversaw six Supreme Court confirmation hearings, most notably Robert Bork (who was defeated) and Clarence Thomas, which became a three-ring circus (the first of many by the Democrats). As VP, we would be remiss if we didn’t mention the Benghhazi tragedy.

Nonetheless, voting for Mr. Biden means you were satisfied with the policies of the Obama administration, as Mr. Biden will likely perpetuate this agenda. It also means…

  • You believe the economy is in shambles and unemployment is sky high (even though it is currently at 7.9%).
  • You believe charter schools are bad for children, public schools are better.
  • You believe murderers and violent offenders should have the right to vote, as well as illegal immigrants.
  • You believe there should be higher taxes, particularly for the “1%.” This means you believe in a redistribution of the wealth in this country, and by doing so, you believe Socialism should supersede Capitalism.
  • You believe government should become more invasive in controlling the lives of the people, after all, they are not smart enough to know what is best.
  • You believe there should be more entitlements, such as free college, free housing, free everything, etc. This includes illegal immigrants.
  • You believe the New Green Deal is a great idea and should be implemented ASAP (regardless of the cost).
  • You believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed regarding the right to bear arms.
  • You believe there is no problem with open borders, and construction of the Southern wall should cease immediately.
  • You believe in diverting financial resources away from the military and space exploration, and transferring it to other priorities.
  • You believe expanding and packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices is a reasonable way to promote the Democrat agenda.
  • You believe the electoral college should be abolished and the popular vote should be the sole method for electing the president. By doing so, you believe urban America should have a greater voice in elections than rural America.
  • You believe racism is rampant in this country.
  • You believe there is little crime in Democrat-controlled urban areas.
  • You believe the country should bail out faltering economies in Democrat controlled states, such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
  • You believe law enforcement is inherently evil and should be reduced.
  • You believe fracking and cultivating fossil fuels should be curbed immediately.

Obviously, this list could be much longer, but such a set of beliefs speaks volumes about your moral values and interpretation of what America means.

In all likelihood, you believe the main stream media is unbiased, fair and accurate in their reporting, as are polls and fact checkers. Further, you consider the social mores of today antiquated and in need of change. It is also likely you believe the political system is not rigged, particularly the Democrat Party. If I were to bet, you also probably have a weak sense of American history and are inclined to see historical monuments defaced or destroyed.

However, if you happen to vote for Donald Trump, you are refuting these beliefs. You also believe the politicians, lobbyists, and journalists are corrupt, and are more concerned with lining their pockets with money as opposed to serving the public.

So, our choice is simple: We either perpetuate the Obama legacy or vote to dismember the Washington Swamp. It’s not a matter of a particular person, it’s a matter of our perspective on government.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.