American Pride Burning

They called it a “night of rage.” But outside the charred walls of Buffalo’s CompassCare, pro-lifers could barely get the national media to call it anything. Like the string of domestic firebombings across WisconsinOregonColoradoTennessee, and Washington, the blown out windows, graffiti, and trashed offices were barely a blip on network news. It’s been quite a contrast to the extensive coverage a single burned flag in New York is getting. But then, that’s the power of the Pride.

The incident that’s grabbing headlines happened in the wee hours of Monday morning. According to security footage, a woman parked her SUV, walked over to a rainbow flag hanging outside SoHo’s Little Prince restaurant, pulled out a lighter, and set the flag on fire. An employee working late inside saw the flames and called 911. Although the residents on higher floors had to be evacuated, no one was injured. There were, however, cracked windows and “external damage,” especially to the outside landscaping.

“It’s disgusting,” restaurant owner Cobi Levy said. His staff, he told the press, is shaken and scared. “These kinds of acts are desperate acts committed by people who are consumed with hate and filled with hate,” thundered Eric Bottcher, a local councilmember. The New York Times and other major newspapers descended on the scene, interviewing sympathetic neighbors and calling for the suspect to face the harshest penalties.

Within 24 hours, an investigation had been launched by NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force and a replacement flag — larger than the one that proclaimed “Make America Gay Again” — had already been hung.

The all-hands-on-deck response was quite a contradiction to what more than 100 churches and pro-life groups have experienced over the last seven months from the FBI, which waited six of those months just to list the attackers on its Most Wanted website. Not a single arrest has been made in CompassCare’s case. In fact, the federal government has been so indifferent to the crimes that several pro-life groups have resorted to launching their own private investigation.

Meanwhile, in the Big Apple, Bottcher celebrated the LGBT movement’s resilience. “Our resolve is only strengthened when acts like this happen,” Bottcher told the community at a special ceremony to replace the colors on Tuesday. “We are standing up in the face of this hate and reasserting our pride in ourselves and our community. That’s why we hung the flag again.” Little Prince posted a photo of the new flag with one word: “Defiant.”

I want to be clear right off the bat: While there’s an obvious discrepancy in how the two sides have been treated by the media and law enforcement, no one is defending this woman’s actions. Respect for other people’s property — whether it’s a ministry or a drag bar — ought to be a reasonable expectation of every American. There’s no excuse for lawlessness in any form or against any person. That said, the hysteria over what happened in SoHo is a powerful illustration of where we are as a nation, and ignoring it only primes the pump for more hypocrisy.

There are plenty of double standards at play here, not the least of which is the excessive significance the legacy media assigns to victims of their pet political causes, while more than 100 pro-life ministries, churches, and pregnancy care centers sit smoldering in the ashes of a similar hatred, virtually ignored. Imagine if this woman had set fire to an America flag. Would the press race to the scene and mourn the lack of national pride across their platforms? Of course not, because in this age of identity politics, we’ve gotten to the point where setting fire to a rainbow flag is a “hate crime” and burning Old Glory is self-expression.

Frankly, the fact that a single act of arson can make national news is astonishing in an age when mobs can burn down entire cities with the ruling class’s blessing. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, torching federal buildings, courts, city property, and private businesses wasn’t violence, the Left said. It was “justice” — the kind that major Democratic figures publicly embraced.

It wasn’t even two years ago that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), told the masses that if there wasn’t a guilty verdict in the Floyd murder case, then “… we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice.” Party leaders, like then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), defended Waters’s call to arms, saying she should not have to apologize for inciting violence. Rep. Alyssa Pressley (Mass.) flat-out called for “unrest,” while liberal city leaders from Portland to Chicago linked arms with anarchists, even going so far as to sue federal officials who tried to restore law and order.

The soon-to-be vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, also endorsed the mobs, telling Stephen Colbert, “They’re not going to stop. … This is a movement. … And everyone, beware. …They’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”

Protestors, emboldened by Democrats, went on an anti-American rampage, toppling statues, defacing monuments, spraypainted historic buildings, and destroying private property, racking up more than $1 billion dollars in damage across the country — the most expensive riot spree in U.S. history. And yet this, the burning of a single LGBT flag, is “war in America.”

The irony is hard to miss. At a time when liberal ideologues argue against prosecuting anyone for anything, a woman destroying a rainbow flag faces double the punishment under New York’s hate crimes statute, which not only penalizes crimes but motives too. But what about the motives of the arsons in Buffalo? Where was the demand for “hate crimes” in cities where “ABORT THE CHURCH” and “DEATH TO CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM” were spraypainted across houses of worship?

If you’re starting to believe double standards are America’s only standards, you’re not alone. When burning our flag is “protected speech,” and a banner of sexual fanaticism is untouchable, we’ve passed the point of absurdity as a nation. And yet, these are the lessons our children have been taught: you can kneel for the national anthem but not refuse to wear a rainbow.

Now the bitter fruits of that indoctrination are everywhere. Today, more of Generation Z identifies as LGBT (20%) than feels proud to call America home (16%). Is it any wonder that society treats the Pride flag with a reverence it used to reserve for the country that gave activists the right to fly it in the first place?

In 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down the criminal penalties for burning a U.S. flag, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented in his dissent, “[The American flag] is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations.” It does not “represent the views of any particular party, and it does not represent any political philosophy,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted. “The flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.” The value of its unifying power, the four dissenting justices argued, cannot be measured.

Thirty-four years later, that unity is being tested as never before. We’ve become a people determined to wave our own flags, so comfortable in our factions that we’re trampling our country’s ideals — the same ideals that laid the foundations of self-expression the Left worships today. But if America has any hope of healing these deep divides, of ending these uncivil wars, the solution is returning — not to what divides us, but to what connects us. A national identity found, not in a spectrum of colors, but in three: red, white, and blue.


Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.


Abortion and Miscarriage: The Emptiness of Lies and the Fullness of Life

Tuberville Challenges DOD Abortion Subsidies, Holds Military Promotions

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

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

Susan Rice to Head Biden’s Race-Essentialism Task Force

Breitbart News reports that adviser Susan Rice has been tapped to lead the Biden administration’s new “White House Steering Committee on Equity” designed to embed a “focus on equity into the fabric of Federal policymaking.”

Alleged President Biden issued a February 16 executive order on “further advancing racial equity,” which established the new office set to “transform” federal agencies, with the goal of “advanc[ing] an ambitious, whole-of-government approach to racial equity and support for underserved communities and to continuously embed equity into all aspects of Federal decision-making.”

Withing a month of the order, every major federal agency will be required to establish “Agency Equity Teams” who will submit annual racialized plans to Rice’s steering committee. Such equity teams will be charged with “the implementation of equity initiatives” within their respective agencies and “delivering equitable outcomes for the American people.”

Some initiatives include “continued equity training and equity leadership development” and to “facilitate equitable flows of private capital.”

America First Legal president Stephen Miller said:

With the stroke of a pen, Biden has transformed the entire federal government into a DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] cult—putting equity czars inside virtually every single agency of the executive branch and subordinating every department to the Marxist equity agenda. Every previous law and regulation must now be reinterpreted to ensure racial and gender equity: in other words, to achieve a predetermined racial or gender identity outcome even if it requires ruthless discrimination against American citizens.

Biden’s executive order follows a larger push by his administration, from his first day in office, to put race at the center of every policy decision.

Susan Rice

33 Known Connections

In June 2020, Rice smeared the Trump presidency as “an administration which has been racist to its core for the last three and a half years, from comparing the peaceful protesters at Charlottesville to white supremacists, calling white supremacists very fine people, all the way through to the recent weeks where the administration has disparaged the Black Lives Matter movement, disparaged the peaceful protesters, and basically made plain that they prefer to stand by a Confederate legacy than a modern America, it’s been an administration whose record on race is just disgraceful.” Moreover, Rice described presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden as “somebody who can heal and unify the nation and remove Donald Trump and consign him and those who supported him in the Senate to the trash heap of history.”

To learn more about Susan Rice, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Issues Second Executive Order to ‘Further’ Advance Governmentwide Racial Equity

Although the U.S. has already implemented a governmentwide plan to advance racial equity and support underserved communities under a 2021 Biden executive order, the president has issued a second directive to strong arm federal agencies into launching more initiatives that will further tax Americans. Under the recently issued mandate government agencies have 30 days to establish an “Agency Equity Team” and conduct proactive engagement with members of underserved communities through culturally and linguistically appropriate listening sessions. Biden is also creating a White House Steering Committee on Equity composed of senior officials who will coordinate the government’s sweeping efforts to promote his leftist agenda.

“By advancing equity, the Federal Government can support and empower all Americans, including the many communities in America that have been underserved, discriminated against, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality,” Biden writes in the new document, adding that “equitability” will rebuild trust in government. “This order builds upon my previous equity-related Executive Orders by extending and strengthening equity-advancing requirements for agencies, and it positions agencies to deliver better outcomes for the American people,” according to the president. As examples the commander-in-chief offers building a strong, fair, and inclusive workforce and economy, investing in communities where federal policies have historically impeded equal opportunity, mitigating economic displacement, rooting out discrimination in the housing market, advancing equity in health, environmental justice and ending “unjust disparities” in the nation’s criminal justice system.

Additionally, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will update directives to “support equitable decision-making, promote equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance, and assist agencies in advancing equity, as appropriate and wherever possible,” the new executive order says. This is important because OMB plays a pivotal role in government by developing and executing the federal budget, overseeing federal agencies and executive branch operations, and coordinating all significant federal regulations. The new order also includes a blueprint to make equity part of the official federal budget process and specifically prevent discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. “My Administration has embedded a focus on equity into the fabric of Federal policymaking and service delivery,” Biden writes, bragging that his presidency is the most diverse in our nation’s history.

This month’s executive order is part of a robust movement by the administration to incorporate racial equity across all federal agencies. The president launched the plan on his first day in office with the lengthy executive order to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the government. The 2021 document claims that “entrenched disparities” in laws, public policies, and private institutions have denied equal opportunity to individuals and communities and that the health and climate crises have exposed inequities while a “historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism.” Therefore, the original order states, the federal government should pursue a “comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” It further says that “by advancing equity across the Federal Government, we can create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically underserved, which benefits everyone.”

Many key federal agencies have taken major steps to implement racial equity plans as per Biden’s first mandate. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formulated a strategy to “advance equity for marginalized and underserved communities” that, among other things, directs federal prosecutors to ignore maximum sentencing under the law to “avoid unwarranted disparities.” The Department of Labor has dedicated $260 million to promote “equitable access” to government unemployment benefits by addressing disparities in the administration and delivery of money by race ethnicity and language proficiency. The Treasury Department named its first ever racial equity chief, a veteran La Raza official who spent a decade at the nation’s most influential open borders group. The Department of Defense (DOD) is using outrageous anti-bias materials that indoctrinate troops with anti-American and racially inflammatory training on diversity topics. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) created an equity commission to address longstanding inequities in agriculture. The nation’s medical research agency has a special minority health and health disparities division that issued a study declaring COVID-19 exacerbated preexisting resentment against racial/ethnic minorities and marginalized communities.


The Sudden Dominance of the Diversity Industrial Complex

New Biden EO Mandates ‘Equal Outcomes’ to Fight Against The Enemy—Straight White Males

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

In Defense of the U.S. Constitution

Sir William Gladstone, a British Prime Minister during the time of Queen Victoria, once observed, “The American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

The Constitution needs no defense. Its durability is a testimony to its greatness. However, many Americans today certainly do not appreciate it.

Last year one commentator said on national television that the U.S. Constitution was “trash.”  Trash? What do we do with trash? We throw it out. Yipes.

Meanwhile, just last week, after a two year legal battle, a student was finally granted permission to hand out copies of our nation’s Constitution anywhere on his campus, not just the comparatively tiny “free speech zone” established by a Los Angeles area college.

After his legal victory, Pierce College student Kevin Shaw remarked, “I’m thankful to know future students won’t have to worry about being harassed for expressing political opinions.” Too bad he had to battle for this in the first place, over a course of two years. And is America’s chief governing document a mere “political opinion” now?

Earlier this month, reported on how an immigrant was expelled from her post in academia reportedly because of her advocacy of our nation’s governing document: “A Virginia Board of Education member named Suparna Dutta, who was appointed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, was booted from the board by Senate Democrats because she ardently defended the Constitution and spoke out against socialism to another board member, calling it ‘very destructive.’”

Ironically, this immigrant from India who supports “traditional American values” was also accused of supposedly being a “white supremacist.”

Quite honestly, I don’t think the huddled masses at the southern border yearning to breathe free view our nation’s governing document as trash, or as merely an instrument of “white supremacy.”

Why do people vote with their feet to try and get a chance to enjoy life here under our Constitution?

I’ve been working on a documentary on our nation’s governing document. It’s called, “We the People.” This is the latest installment of our Providence Forum’s ongoing series, “The Foundation of American Liberty,” on the role of Judeo-Christian influence in the settling and founding of America.

“We the People” not only explains how the Bible played a critical role in the creation of the Constitution, but it also answers important objections—often raised today—such as the issues of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the mistreatment of the Indians.

These are glaring examples of the promises of the Constitution that came late, but came nonetheless. The special points out how the framers built in the means by which injustices could be rectified.

Some of the guests in “We the People” on America and its Constitution:

  • Alveda King, niece of MLK: “There is still opportunity in America, there is still hope in America, there is still prayer in America, and I continue to pray for America.”
  • Rev. Billy Falling: “As a Native American, the Constitution means to me that I have a protection, I have a wall, I have something that covers me, and that is the rule of law.”
  • Father Leon Hutton: “As a Catholic, the Constitution has meant to us the opportunity to freely practice faith as we see it.”
  • Dennis Prager: “This is the Judeo-Christian country. Christians rooted in ‘Judeo’ founded the country. Jews knew this….Jews were in love with this country and for good reason.”
  • Jenna Ellis: “As a millennial Christian woman, the Constitution is such a wonderful gift that my generation and the generations after must continue to preserve and protect.”

I have been working on this series for some time, and I was able to get an interview with syndicated columnist Dr. Walter Williams, a professor at George Mason University, about a year before his death,

Dr. Williams told me”: “I think that the United States Constitution has been very valuable just considering the evidence. Number one, we still have the Constitution, although, it’s not obeyed all the time. But the Constitution has led to the richest and the most powerful nation on the face of this earth and the greatest amount of personal liberty that people enjoy, that is the people try to get to United States, people want to live in United States, they want to become American citizens. And the reason why is the liberty that we have.”

I wish some of today’s elites on the left would rethink their jaundiced view of this “most wonderful work,” the Constitution of the United States of America. The irony is that those who rail against the Constitution are able to do so because of the freedoms granted them by that very document.

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Emily Kohrs Forewoman of Georgia Grand Jury Investigating Trump Steps In It—Big Time

The forewoman of the Georgia Grand Jury considering President Donald J. Trump and others for indictment related to J6 is a witch who made some really absurd comments on CNN.

I hope Trump’s lawyers use her silly, stupid, giggling performance to throw out charges such as jury tampering.

She must have been coached by the laughing hyena word salad Vice President Kamala “Commie” Harris. That or she has read or watched too many Harry Potter books and movies or maybe she’s a graduate of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft.

CNN reporters agonize over Trump grand jury forewoman’s bizarre media blitz: ‘Prosecutor’s nightmare’

CNN reporters agonized over Emily Kohrs, the forewoman on Georgia’s special grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump, who sat down for multiple interviews with the media about the grand jury’s recommendations.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Elie Honig discussed Kohrs’ interview Tuesday night and wondered if her media blitz was “responsible.”

“First of all why this person is talking on TV, I do not understand. Because, she’s clearly enjoying herself, but I mean, is this responsible? She was the foreperson of this grand jury,” Cooper said.

Honig said it was a “horrible idea” and that the prosecutors were likely “wincing.”

“I was wincing just watching her eagerness to like, hint at stuff,” Cooper added. Honig said the interviews were a “prosecutor’s nightmare.”

“Mark my words, Donald Trump’s team is going to make a motion, if there’s an indictment, to dismiss that indictment based on grand jury impropriety. She’s not supposed to be talking about anything, really. But she’s really not supposed to be talking about the deliberations. She’s talking about what specific witnesses they saw, what the grand jury thought of them. She says some of them we found credible, some we found funny. I don’t know why that’s relevant, but she’s been saying we found this guy funny or interesting. I think she’s potentially crossing a line here. It’s gonna be a real problem for prosecutors,” Honig continued.

During “CNN This Morning” on Wednesday, analyst Maggie Haberman joined the hosts to discuss Kohrs’ media appearances and seemed to echo Cooper and Honig’s concerns as well.

“If I am the prosecutor I am not sure that I want this media tour taking place because I’m confident that Donald Trump’s lawyers are going to use this,” she said.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

Why Censorship Should Chill You to the Bone

China’s first emperor, Qin Shi Huang, once said “I have collected all the writings of the Empire and burnt those which were of no use.” Lovers of liberty the world over have been fighting the arrogance of censors in all the 2,400 years since he uttered that.

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties,” declared John Milton in his famous 1644 polemic known as Aeropagitica. He wrote in passionate support of freedom of press and speech at a time when both King and Parliament attempted to censor dissent.

A little more than two centuries later, John Stuart Mill expressed similar sentiments in a famous essay titled On Liberty. Opinions should never be silenced, he argued, because 1) they might be correct; 2) the collision of differing views, correct or incorrect, is often the best pathway to the truth; and 3) absent any contesting perspective, even a truth can wither into a mere kneejerk prejudice. These are among the reasons why civil libertarians argue that the best remedy for false or harmful speech is more speech, not less.

Now here we are in the 21st Century, long after the powerful arguments posed by Milton, Mill and countless others, and censorship remains an issue. It may be an even bigger one today than it was decades ago. By one measure, the Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters Without Borders, the squelching of opinion is a problem in an awful lot of places.

Censorship is generally considered a province of governments because they have the requisite monopoly on legalized force. They can shut you up and send the cops to your door if you don’t stay quiet. If a private entity, such as a newspaper, chooses not to publish something, we may cavalierly describe its action as “censorship”, but that newspaper cannot forbid other private parties from publishing it. That newspaper can shut itself up, but it can’t shut others up. It can’t dispatch men with guns to silence a competitor (at least not legally).

One reason censorship is in the news is the unholy alliance between certain private entities (such as social media companies) with government. Exhibit A: the FBI working with Twitter to censor the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop. When private entities conspire with government to silence opinion, we get the worst of two worlds: the brute force of the state combined with the technology and efficiency of free enterprise. The Biden Administration’s botched plan to create a kind of Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” would likely have formalized a censorship alliance between Big Government and Big Tech. For now at least, we dodged a bullet on that one!

For the same reason we should fear such combinations, we should dread the thought of the IRS hiring private firms to collect taxes; I’d rather trust bumbling bureaucracies with that.

Those who value liberty should be wary of self-censorship too. We all practice forms of it to some extent. As adults, for instance, we usually avoid certain words and topics in the presence of children. But when self-censorship arises from intimidation or intolerance (e.g., “cancel culture”), our liberties are in danger. Brad Polumbo warned in these pages that “Self-censorship driven by culture, not government, erodes our collective discovery of truth all the same.” We could use more serious discussion of just how subtle but pervasive self-censorship has become these days, and more courage to push back on it.

To remind us of the dangers inherent in censorship, I wish to share with readers some of the more eloquent statements said of it. The first comes from Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, in a letter to one Arthur Brisbane dated April 25, 1917:

I can imagine no greater disservice to the country than to establish a system of censorship that would deny to the people of a free republic like our own their indisputable right to criticize their own public officials. While exercising the great powers of the office I hold, I would regret in a crisis like the one through which we are now passing to lose the benefit of patriotic and intelligent criticism.

Before you pronounce Wilson a civil libertarian, consider the context: He wrote that letter three weeks after securing from Congress a declaration of war against Germany and just two weeks after signing an executive order creating the Committee on Public Information. He charged that new federal agency with a task that Christopher B. Daly in Smithsonian Magazine called “a plan to control, manipulate and censor all news coverage, on a scale never seen in U.S. history”—in other words, to carry out the very dastardly assignment he said a few days before was a “disservice to the country.”

If Wilson’s duplicity shakes your confidence in government behavior on the matter of censorship, then you’re primed and ready for the rest of the quotes:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money – Frederick Douglass, 1880

Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed – Benjamin Franklin, 1730

Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure way against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is freedom – Alfred Whitney Griswold, 1952

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings – Heinrich Heine, 1823

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? Isn’t a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what is fit not to be, is the man most likely to become debauched? Did you hear any speaker in the opposition to this motion, eloquent as one of them was, to whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read? To whom you would give the job of deciding for you – relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up. Do you know anyone to whom you’d give this job? Does anyone have a nominee? – Christopher Hitchens, 2006

The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. We could justify any censorship only when the censors are better shielded against error than the censored – Robert H. Jackson, 1950

All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship – George Bernard Shaw, 1893

Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman’s intrusive thumb or a judge’s heavy hand. So it is that the Constitution protects coarse expression as well as refined, and vulgarity no less than elegance – Potter Stewart, 1965

How Woodrow Wilson’s Propaganda Machine Changed American Journalism by Christopher B. Daly

Free Speech Authoritarianism is Not the Answer to Censorship by Jess Gill

The Censorship of COVID-19 Data Around the World by Sam Bocetta

How Free Speech Drives Economic Progress by David Chapek

“Ministry of Truth” Trends on Twitter by Jon Miltimore

Historic Figures Who Recognized that Speech is Freedom’s First Line of Defense by Lawrence W. Reed


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist?as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is

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

It’s About Time: Transgender Clinic Investigated for Child Abuse

Missouri’s Attorney General gave new details about his investigation into the St. Louis gender clinic where a trans whistleblower alleged medical providers are going way too far in pushing sex change drugs and surgery on kids.

The investigation is quite wide-ranging.  It involves multiple state agencies and promises to leave no stone unturned.  Investigators are looking for consumer protection infractions, professional license violations, Medicaid fraud, parental consent fraud, and crimes.  The validity of parental consent is at issue because parents were falsely told their children would commit suicide unless they were allowed to transition.  Coercion is not consent.  Valid parental consent was also lacking because clinicians did not make full disclosure about the long-term adverse health consequences of sex change drugs and surgery.  As for the criminal aspects of the investigation, the clinicians involved could end up facing child abuse charges.  School officials, who have a legal duty to report child abuse, may be complicit, instead.  The investigation will determine whether they conspired with clinicians to form a school-to-clinic pipeline of steady business for the clinic.  I hope the Attorney General looks at whether bribe money changed hands in that corrupt transaction.

Several other aspects of Missouri’s investigation are worth noting.  Children are getting confusing information about gender from Chinese-owned TikTok, advice that is overriding their own life’s experience with their own bodies.  The clinic pushes sex change drugs and surgery as a first resort without any thought to psychological assessments in individual cases.  The clinic does not follow transitioners long-term to see what the adverse consequences of clinic-prescribed treatment might be.  Puberty blockers are addictive and the clinic moves children into cross-sex hormones virtually a hundred percent of the time.

Other countries have pulled back from the gender affirmation model now ascendant in the U.S. for children.  These countries have restricted or banned dangerous treatments and now employ psychological evaluation as the first resort for minors presenting gender dysphoria.

Missouri’s investigation is an indication the tide may be turning but, for the moment, the phony transgender narrative just keeps getting crazier.  Social workers in Pennsylvania must now report whether newborns within their purview self-identify as ‘nonbinary’.  Huh?  You heard that right: “I have to ask clients, ‘Is your 10-day-old male, female, or nonbinary?,'” one social worker said.   Another crazy parent pushing transitioning on their kids came to light in recent days.  A mother is transitioning her 4-year-old boy because he likes to dress up and doesn’t want to play tee ball.  The story revealed the child’s daycare center may have been planting confusing thoughts about gender in the child’s mind.  In any event, this parent is engaged in child abuse because most children grow out of such temporary phases.

There are reasons to hope public sentiment on this issue will flip soon.  The New York Times finally had to admit gender transitioning is dangerous.  A long story cited other countries pulling back, doctors who won’t engage in the practice, increasing numbers of transitioners expressing regrets, and the pressure on government authorities coming from activists to approve sex change drugs and surgery for children before the ramifications were understood.  Another media outlet published a story on adverse consequences of vaginoplasty surgery including severe pain, difficulty urinating, and sexual dysfunction.

South Dakota just banned sex change drugs and surgery for youth.  Other recent moves to challenge the status quo have come from conservative activist groups who are gathering information, mounting publicity campaigns, and supporting litigation against schools for secret transitioning, as well as against medical providers and the Biden administration’s expansive gender identity rules.  A schoolteacher in California got fired for refusing to lie to parents to keep their child’s professed gender identity secret from them.  This teacher courageously stood up for her personal beliefs at the cost of her job.   More like her, please.

This story illustrates how the Left spreads its bad ideas under the radar using coercion, scare tactics, and pressure to adopt policies before anyone takes a close look at them.  We can only hope that everyone roped into the Left’s enterprise of gender transitioning for children will have second thoughts now that legal jeopardy is starting to attach.  Nothing like lawsuits and criminal charges to focus the mind.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

When Biden and GOP Agree on Section 230, It’s Not a Good Thing

When you’re doing what the Left wants, check whether you’re walking into a trap.

Long-time readers know that I’ve been banging the drum on Google and Big Tech for a long time. The “conventional wisdom” in conservative circles has concentrated on going after Big Tech with Section 230 of the CDA. My argument has been that while 230 should have no legal standing, it’s not any kind of solution and that antitrust action will break up Big Tech monsters like Google and create a more competitive market.

The Left loves going after Section 230 because it opens the door to regulating them. And those regulations will lead to even more censorship of conservatives.

It’s easy to see where this is going with an upcoming Supreme Court case: Gonzalez v. Google.

Biden and Republican senators join forces in attack on Big Tech at Supreme Court – NBC News

The Biden administration is roughly on the same page as prominent Republicans, such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, in arguing in favor of limits on internet company immunity under a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act called Section 230.

But the loose alliance in a case involving YouTube that the court hears on Tuesday illustrates how opposition to the broad immunity companies receive for their content moderation decisions and what content users post cuts across ideological lines. There are also unusual bedfellows backing YouTube owner Google, with the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, the libertarian Cato Institute and the corporate giant U.S. Chamber of Commerce all taking their side.

Gonzalez v. Google is a particularly bad case that blames YouTube’s recommendations for causing Islamic terror attacks in Europe. The case strikes me as extremely farfetched on factual grounds, but nobody cares about the actual factual question of whether YouTube recommendations caused a particular ISIS attack in Europe. The endgame here is to bypass Section 230 on the way to dismantling it by arguing that it doesn’t protect algorithmic recommendations. Such recommendations can be generated automatically or with some intervention.

I understand why the Biden administration wants in on the action. It’s been obsessed with getting YouTube and social media companies to stop recommending content it doesn’t like.

But what exactly is the payoff here for Republicans? The underlying issue is discrimination against conservatives. YouTube already censors conservatives on a variety of issues, so maybe there’s not much there to lose, but I imagine a sustained government regime could quickly show us how much more there is to lose.

The endgame is destroying Section 230, but on the way to what? Senator Hawley’s legal filing concludes with, “The Court should not interpret Section 230 to shield platforms from liability for distributing unlawful content.”

Okay. I don’t think there’s a problem with the legal argument. Since Senator Lieberman began pressuring YouTube to remove terrorism videos, the company eventually gave in. But what’s the stake for conservatives in creating liability for YouTube on the content it hosts? What are we winning here exactly except more censorship?

What Biden’s people want is pretty clear.

Biden took a shot at tech companies in his State of the Union address earlier this month, although he did not mention Section 230. He was more specific in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month in which he called for reform, saying companies need to “take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use.” A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the administration’s position in the case.

Cruz said in an interview that while there might be some common ground on legislation to overhaul Section 230, the Biden administration is mostly OK with companies “censoring” views with which they disagree.

“Big Tech engages in blatantly anti-competitive activity. They enjoy monopoly profits. And they use that power to, among other things, censor and silence the American people and I believe we should use every tool at our disposal to stop that,” he said.

How is this stopping that?

There are multiple tracks to fighting Big Tech from antitrust to treating political discrimination as a civil rights issue. If the latter were in place, then Section 230 reform might make sense within that framework. Right now all that nuking Section 230 does is make it easier for government oversight and lawsuits over content, but doesn’t provide a meaningful way for conservatives to change anything. Eliminating 230 would create a lot of liability for Big Tech, but like most government regulations will make it harder for smaller upstarts to compete.

Without Section 230, leftist lawfare could easily cripple upstart conservative upstarts like Rumble or Parler, it won’t stop Google.

When you’re doing exactly what the Left wants, it might be a good idea to check whether you’re walking into a trap.


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

The History of Slavery You Probably Weren’t Taught in School

Slavery cannot be justified or excused by enlightened people, but it can be studied, explained, put in context, and understood—if all the facts of it are in the equation.

In “Recognizing Hard Truths About America’s History With Slavery,” published by FEE on February 11, 2023, I urged an assessment of slavery that includes its full “historical and cultural contexts” and that does not neglect “uncomfortable facts that too often are swept under the rug.”

The central notion of both that previous essay and this follow-up is that slavery was a global norm for centuries, not a peculiar American institution. America is not exceptional because of slavery in our past; we may, however, be exceptional because of the lengths to which we went to get rid of it. In any event, it is an age-old tragedy abolished in most places only recently (in the past two centuries or so). As British historian Dan Jones notes in Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages,

Slavery was a fact of life throughout the ancient world. Slaves—people defined as property, forced to work, stripped of their rights, and socially ‘dead,’ could be found in every significant realm of the age. In China, the Qin, Han, and Xin dynasties enforced various forms of slavery; so too did ancient rulers of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and India.

Milton Meltzer’s Slavery: A World History is both comprehensive and riveting in its presentation. He too recognizes the ubiquity of human bondage:

The institution of slavery was universal throughout much of history. It was a tradition everyone grew up with. It seemed essential to the social and economic life of the community, and man’s conscience was seldom troubled by it. Both master and slave looked upon it as inevitable…A slave might be of any color—white, black, brown, yellow. The physical differences did not matter. Warriors, pirates, and slave dealers were not concerned with the color of a man’s skin or the shape of his nose.

The indigenous populations of both North and South America, pre-European settlement, also practiced slavery. Meltzer writes,

The Aztecs also made certain crimes punishable by enslavement. An offender against the state—a traitor, say—was auctioned off into slavery, with the proceeds going into the state treasury…Among the Mayans, a man could sell himself or his children into slavery…The comparatively rich Nootkas of Cape Flattery (in what is now northwestern Washington state) were notorious promoters of slaving. They spurred Vancouver tribes to attack one another so that they could buy the survivors.

Perhaps because it conflicts with race-based political agendas, slavery of Africans by fellow Africans is one of those uncomfortable truths that often flies under the radar. Likewise, industrial-scale slavery of Africans by nearby Arabs as well as Arab slavery of Europeans are historical facts that are frequently ignored. Both subjects are explored in The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam by Simon Webb and Slavery and Slaving in African History by Sean Stilwell.

Slavery cannot be justified or excused by enlightened people, but it can be studied, explained, put in context, and understood—if all the facts of it are in the equation. It’s a painful topic, to be sure, which is even more reason to leave nothing out and to prevent political agendas from getting in the way.

The widespread sin of “presentism” poisons our understanding of such hot-button topics as slavery. As I wrote in August 2020,

Terms for this way of looking at the past range from intertemporal bigotry to chronological snobbery to cultural bias to historical quackery. The more clinical label is “presentism.” It’s a fallacious perspective that distorts historical realities by removing them from their context. In sports, we call it “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Presentism is fraught with arrogance. It presumes that present-day attitudes didn’t evolve from earlier ones but popped fully formed from nowhere into our superior heads. To a presentist, our forebears constantly fail to measure up so they must be disdained or expunged. As one writer put it, “They feel that their light will shine brighter if they blow out the candles of others.”

Our ancestors were each a part of the era in which they lived, not ours. History should be something we learn from, not run from; if we analyze it through a presentist prism, we will miss much of the nuanced milieu in which our ancestors thought and acted.

Watch this 8-minute video, Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned in School and you might ask, “Why didn’t I hear this before?”

The answer may simply be that the facts it lays out are politically incorrect, which means they are inconvenient for the conventional wisdom. They don’t fit the “presentist” narrative.

What I personally find most fascinating about slavery is the emergence in recent centuries of ideas that would transform the world’s view of it from acceptance to rejection. Eighteenth Century Enlightenment ideals that questioned authority and sought to elevate human rights, liberty, happiness, and toleration played a role. So did a Christian reawakening late in the 18th and early 19th Centuries that produced the likes of abolitionists William Wilberforce and others.

The Declaration of Independence pricked the consciences of millions who came to understand that its stirring words were at odds with the reality many black Americans experienced on a daily basis. And as capitalism and free markets spread in the 19th Century, slavery faced a competition with free labor that it ultimately could not win. Exploring the potency of those important—indeed, radical—forces would seem to me to be more fruitful and less divisive than playing the race card, cherry-picking evidence to support political agendas, or promoting perpetual victimhood.

The prolific economist and historian Thomas Sowell has written about slavery in many of his voluminous articles and books. For Conquests and Cultures: An International History, he devoted fifteen years of research and travel (around the world twice, no less). Though the book is about much more than slavery, the author reveals a great deal about the institution that few people know.

I close out this essay with excerpts from this Sowell classic, and I strongly urge interested readers to check out the suggestions for additional information, below:

Inland tribes [in Africa] such as the Ibo were regularly raided by their more power coastal neighbors and the captives led away to be sold as slaves. European merchants who came to buy slaves in West Africa were confined by rulers in these countries to a few coastal ports, where Africans could bring slaves and trade as a cartel, in order to get higher prices. Hundreds of miles farther south, in the Portuguese colony of Angola, hundreds of thousands of Africans likewise carried out the initial captures, enslavement and slave-trading processes, funneling the slaves into the major marketplaces, where the Portuguese took charge of them and shipped them off to Brazil. Most of the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were purchased, rather than captured, by Europeans. Arabs, however, captured their own slaves and penetrated far deeper into Africa than Europeans dared venture….

Over the centuries, untold millions of human beings from sub-Saharan Africa were transported in captivity to other parts of the world. No exact statistics exist covering all the sources and all the destinations, and scholarly estimates vary. However, over the centuries, somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million people were shipped across the Atlantic as slaves, and another 14 million African slaves were sent to the Islamic nations of the Middle East and North Africa. On both routes, many died in transit.

The horrors of the Atlantic voyage in packed and suffocating slave ships, together with exposure to new diseases from Europeans and other African tribes, as well as the general dangers of the Atlantic crossing in that era, took a toll in lives amounting to about 10 percent of all slaves shipped to the Western Hemisphere in British vessels in the eighteenth century—the British being the leading slave traders of that era. However, the death toll among slaves imported by the Islamic countries, many of these slaves being forced to walk across the vast, burning sands of the Sahara, was twice as high. Thousands of human skeletons were strewn along one Saharan slave route alone—mostly the skeletons of young women and girls…In 1849, a letter from an Ottoman official referred to 1,600 black slaves dying of thirst on their way to Libya.

The prime destination of the African slave trade to the Islamic world was Istanbul, capital of the Ottoman Empire, where the largest and busiest slave market flourished. There women were paraded, examined, questioned, and bid on in a public display often witnessed by visiting foreigners, until it was finally closed down in 1847 and the slave trade in Istanbul moved underground. In other Islamic countries, however, the slave markets remained open and public, both to natives and foreigners…This market functioned until 1873, when two British cruisers appeared off shore, followed by an ultimatum from Britain that the Zanzibar slave trade must cease or the island would face a full naval blockade.

From as early as the seventeenth century, most Negroes in the American colonies were born on American soil. This was the only plantation society in the Western Hemisphere in which the African population consistently maintained its numbers without continual, large-scale importations of slaves from Africa, and in which this population grew by natural increase. By contrast, Brazil over the centuries imported six times as many slaves as the United States, even though the U.S. had a larger resident slave population than Brazil—36 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere, as compared to 31 percent for Brazil. Even such Caribbean islands as Haiti, Jamaica and Cuba each imported more slaves than the United States.

You Can Never Again Say You Did Not Know by Lawrence W. Reed

Uniquely Bad—But Not Uniquely American by Kay S. Hymowitz

Recognizing Hard Truths About America’s History With Slavery by Lawrence W. Reed

No, Slavery Did Not Make America Rich by Corey Iacono

Shackles of Iron: Slavery Beyond the Atlantic by Stewart Gordon

Slavery, A World History by Milton Meltzer

100 Amazing Facts About the Negro by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Conquests and Cultures: An International History by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell on Slavery and This Fact: There are More Slaves Today Than Were Seized from Africa in Four Centuries by Mark J. Perry

Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned in School by Thomas Sowell (video)


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is

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

Diversity Narrative Fall Down and Go Boom

It was an embarrassing moment for the Left’s phony diversity narrative.  I’ve commented previously on the narrative’s many faults, one of which is the deliberate attempt to lower standards of performance throughout society.

Last month, Finland chose a transgender to represent the country at the opening ceremonies of the European Figure Skating Championships.  It was an amateur performance during which this person, a biological male dressed like a woman, fell on the ice and was helped up.

This person was not chosen for merit or competence.  This person was chosen to check the diversity, equity, and inclusion box.  I feel sorry he had to be humiliated in front of a worldwide audience.  He was exploited by virtue-signaling leftists who ride identity politics to their own personal wealth and power.

Too bad the consequences of lower standards don’t stay on the ice.  One commentator goes so far as to blame the recent rash of airline incidents to the aviation industry’s new racial and gender quotas for pilot training programs.  When you look at the dumbing down of medical school in the name of promoting equity and inclusion, you have to wonder whether a single-minded focus on diversity kills.  The question came up in connection with the recent death of Tyre Nichols at the hands of five black police officers in Memphis.  News accounts painted a picture of a short-handed police department desperate to fill slots and lowering hiring standards in order to get enough officers on the force.  They hired recruits with less work experience and even criminal records.  They also lowered physical fitness standards and dropped the running test entirely because too many people were failing.

But you don’t have to believe the diversity narrative kills to recognize standards are deteriorating in a number of areas, and the problems that’s causing.   A large county in Virginia has implemented “equitable grading” to eliminate racial disparities in grade outcomes – no penalties for late assignments, standing permission to retake tests, and everybody gets points even if they never turn in assignments.

Not exactly the best preparation for high school, where the work gets tougher.  But it doesn’t matter because a number of states have dropped graduation tests to graduate high school.  Instead of working to bring poor and minority students up to standard, places like Oregon and New Mexico have done away with a testing requirement to get a high school diploma.  Other states like New Jersey are considering the move.

Critics say lowering expectations in high school guarantees students will have trouble handling college courses.  But not to worry.  Colleges are now firing professors whose courses are too hard.  A professor in California found another solution – just give every student an ‘A’ to decolonize the classroom.  That’s right, high standards are just another bad idea imposed on you by your colonialist oppressors.

So is it any wonder med students at the University of Minnesota now pledge to fight “white supremacy” and study indigenous medicine?

Critics have warned lower standards are now infecting a number of professions, including scienceaccountingfirefighting, and the military.  How this will come back to bite people is a story yet to be written, but you can start to imagine the fallout.

But let me conclude by suggesting one other ramification of lowering standards:  Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden wrote books arguing that competence – the ability to do things well – is the indispensable key to good mental health.  If all you know how to do is hold a participation trophy, not only are you being robbed of a full human experience, you are on the road to mental illness, no matter what identity group the Left wants to put you in.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

A Tribute To Our Friend Phillip B. Haney Who Was Assassinated on February 21st, 2020

We became close friends with Phillip B. Haney while he was a federal agent and top national security and terrorist tracker at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Phillip was the first agent to be sworn in at DHS and was highly decorated for his work in stopping terrorists from infiltrating and carrying out attacks against the American people after 9/11/2001. Phillip worked closely with with FBI and CIA.

His work was so successful that it came to the attention of the Obama administration, who shut him and his efforts down. You see Phillip stopped Islamic terrorists and this was against the embrace of Islam by Barack Hussein Obama.

We spoke with Philip weekly while he was in DHS and learned how his work was being thwarted by the Obama administration. After he retired from DHS he wrote  See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, first published in 2016.

Phillip was working on his second book when at a rest stop in Amador County, California he was assassinated on February 21st, 2020 by person or persons unknown to this day. We use the word “assassinated” because that what we believe his death was. It was imperative to stop Phillip from telling the truth about what has now become known as the “deep state.”

in a February 17, 2023 FrontPage Magazine article titled Who Killed Philip Haney? The Mystery Continues wrote,

The FBI is now the American KGB, a squad of deep-state partisans operating above the law. Show the FBI the man and they create the crime through stagecraft and entrapment, as with Gen. Michael Flynn. In the case of Philip Haney, they target a dead man for further investigation by the federal CPB. The expert on jihadism got the same treatment in death he did in life – false accusation by a federal agency, and quite possibly a lot more.

[ … ]

Philip Haney bravely exposed them and paid the price. He’s gone but will not be forgotten. The struggle against terrorism is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

On February 25th, 2020 in an article titled Why I Believe That My Friend Phillip B. Haney Was Assassinated I wrote,

I write this column knowing that my friend Phillip is with God in Heaven. This column is a tribute to a man who stood against evil. This column is in remembrance of a man who never ever gave up. This column is dedicated to a true American patriot. This column pays homage to a fellow warrior in the fight against those who would destroy America from within.

Let me begin by explaining how Phillip and I first met. My contacts with Phillip were all via phone. We spoke frequently, sometimes 2-3 times a week, over a period of 8 years during the most difficult times in his life. While I never had the honor of meeting him in person, we spoke frequently about life, his career, his family, his work and his passion for telling the truth no matter what the consequences.

Phillip became a contributor of ours writing fourteen columns. Phillip’s last column was dated December 3rd, 2019 titled Four Years Ago Today: A Tribute to the Victims of the San Bernardino Jihad Attack. Phillip concluded his last column writing:

As a sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officer who has also been deeply affected by this case, it is my intention, in the weeks, months and years ahead, to help make sure that their stories are not forgotten, and that on one fine day, we will all know more about what really happened on that December day in San Bernardino.

Phillip felt personally responsible for the deaths in San Bernardino because he knew that the Obama administration had shut down his investigation into several Islamist groups, two of which we now know were tied to the San Bernardino attack. Watch:

Upon his retirement after 13 years as a Customs & Border Protection Officer in the Department of Homeland Security, he relished his new role as a whistleblower explaining how political correctness was making us all less safe.

Phillip B. Haney was Assassinated

I believe my friend did not commit suicide. I believe Phillip was not murdered. I believe Phillip was assassinated.

I waited to write this column as the first shock of his death hit me. I kept asking myself why?

I was so distraught that I just couldn’t write about Phillip until I knew more about the circumstances of his death. I read column after column seeking answers to the who, what, where, when and how. As of the writing of this column the investigation into his death is on going. What we do know is that, according to the Washington Examiner:

[Phillip] was found dead with a bullet wound on Friday morning [February 21st]  about 40 miles east of Sacramento, California, in a park-and-ride open area immediately adjacent to state Highway 16 and near state Highway 124, according to law enforcement authorities.

“Highway 16 is a busy state highway and used as a main travel route to and from Sacramento. The location is less than three miles from where [Haney] was living,” the sheriff’s office statement explained.

Here are the reasons why I firmly believe that Phillip was assassinated:

  1. He was a man on a mission to tell his story to anyone who would listen.
  2. He was a man of character.
  3. He was a seasoned federal officer who dedicated his life to serving the nation.
  4. He was a target of various Islamic terrorist groups and individuals because of the work he did at the Department of Homeland Security.
  5. He never gave up even when he was under investigation by his own department’s IG, the U.S. Department of State and then Attorney General Eric Holder.
  6. He was never depressed during hundreds of the conversations we had while he was in DHS, after he retired from DHS and while he was a contributor to our publication.
  7. He was a strong Christian who knew that it was God who put him on this path to tell the truth.

Nick Givas from Fox News reported:

Haney was recently in contact with DHS officials about a possible return to the agency, the Washington Examiner reported, adding that he was also engaged to be married.

Phillip and I often spoke about his desire to return the the Department of Homeland Security. Phillip wanted to first write his book and then return as an agent to continue his work to root out terrorists and their enablers domestically and globally.

Phillip never gave up on this dream.


QUESTION: Why was Phillip B. Haney assassinated?

ANSWER: He was causing Fitna in the Muslim world.

In a February 18, 2015 article titled Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter Phillip wrote:

I have come to believe that Fitnah is the most essential motivational component of Islamic theology, i.e., it is the cornerstone of an adversarial, confrontational worldview that inevitably leads to a state of perpetual conflict with the non-Islamic world.

Philip concluded:

The word ‘Phobia’ has two meanings – either to hate something intensely, or to fear something intensely. Using these two meanings, it could be said that Muslims and non-Muslims both have ‘Fitnaphobia’ – Muslims because they hate Fitnah, and non-Muslims because they fear it.

However, in the case of the non-Muslim world, it appears that we are much more concerned about causing Fitnah (by Opposing the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement), than we are about protecting our western civilization from the increasingly aggressive promoters of Shariah Law.

Phillip was assassinated because he was causing Fitna. You see the slaughter of Phillip was justified in order to stop the Fitna, his pushing back against Islamic terrorism.

Phillip did not hate Muslims nor did he fear the terrorists. He was fearless!

EDITORS NOTE: Phillip wrote 14 columns for us between 2015 and 2019. Here are links to his columns from the first in 2015 to his last in 2019. We do this as a tribute to his love of country, dedication, fearlessness and in his memory.

  1. Is Fatah Really ‘Moderate’?
  2. If Abbas is a ‘moderate,’ what’s a ‘radical’?
  3. Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter
  4. Global Islamic Caliphate Spreading Like Spilled Ink: One Observant Muslim at a Time
  5. An Analysis of President Obama’s Middle East Policy: The Blind, Misleading The Blind
  6. In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims
  7. Why Resisting Islam [Fitnah] Is Worse Than Slaughter, Part II
  8. Commentary on the Saudi Situation
  9. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s Ominous Post-Election Statement
  10. ‘Through the Looking Glass’ – An Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention
  11. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s Ominous Post-Election Statement
  12. Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention
  13. Former Obama Security Clearances Removed — Liberal media in a frantic stir!
  14. Four Years Ago Today: A Tribute to the Victims of the San Bernardino Jihad Attack

©Dr. Richard M. Swier. All rights reserved.


Louie Gohmert on the life and death of Phillip Haney

Philip Haney on his book See Something Say Nothing.

What? Air Force Shot Down $12 Hobby Balloon with $500,000 Missiles!

Congratulations to the Commander-in-Cheap and his WOKE Department of Defense for shooting down a $12 hobby balloon over Lake Huron using 2  $500,000 Sidewinder Missiles (1st one missed) with permission of feckless Canadian PM Trudeau and bragging about it.

Beijing Joe also bragged about his actions regarding a real threat, the Communist Chinese Spy Balloon which was allowed to fly all way across the continental USA and close to dozens of sensitive military installations like our ICBM silos in Montana before finally being shot down.

I really feel safer now.

US Air Force may have shot down hobby club’s balloon worth US$12 with US$439,000 missile

By Aqil Hamzah

The United States Air Force (USAF) launched a US$439,000 (S$587,000) missile to take down an unknown flying object that might prove to be something quite unremarkable: a US$12 (S$16) hobby balloon.

A hobby group in the US, the Northern Illinois Balloon Brigade, was reported by The Guardian as saying that one of its pico balloons had gone “missing in action” over Alaska on Feb 11, when a USAF F-22 fighter jet coincidentally shot down an object flying in the vicinity of Canada’s Yukon territory.

A pico balloon is equipped with trackers typically used to measure temperature, humidity, pressure or wind currents.

Although the group did not link the two events, the balloon’s trajectory suggests a possible connection.

The group’s website said that balloon K9YO was last reported to have been flying at an altitude of 11,560m near Hagemeister Island in Alaska.

However, as “no part of the object shot down… has been recovered,” the group said it was unable to confirm definitively if it was indeed one of their balloons.

The unidentified flying object that was shot down over Yukon was the second one to be felled, with US President Joe Biden issuing orders to take down three of them on consecutive days, starting on Feb 10.

US Department of Defense officials had said that the objects did not pose a military threat, but their flight paths and proximity to sensitive sites, as well as their altitudes, were potential hazards to civil aviation, causing concern.

They have since said that the objects were possibly commercial ones or used for climate research purposes.

The downing of the objects comes after the US in early February shot down an alleged Chinese spy balloon that had flown into its airspace.

Read more.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED AVIDEO: Kirby on Reports that One of the Balloons Shot Down May Have Been from a Hobby Club


US Abandons Search For Unidentified Aerial Objects Shot Down Over Alaska, Lake Huron

NOT SATIRE: Biden Uses $200 Million Fighter Jet to Shoot Down $12 Hobby Club’s Science Project

White House Demands Media ‘Comply,’ Kicks Specific Reporters Out Of Biden’s UFO Brief

Biden may have shot down Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade’s missing balloon: report

Reports: US missile may have shot down $12 balloon from amateur hobby balloonists

Antifa Shares a Fundraising Platform With the DNC

Raising money to finance illegal activity is illegal for anyone – so why do the rules not apply to the Left?

Antifa, like the Democrat Party, is built on the model of nonprofit support infrastructure.

In the party, that means everything except the most direct campaign activities are outsourced to networks of nonprofits that use tax-deductible donations for everything from voter registration and outreach, media and messaging, to funding election infrastructure ‘Zuckerbucks’ style.

Unlike its Black Lives Matter allies, the Antifa networks aren’t funded by a single nonprofit. Antifa’s illegal activities and the radical tendencies of its participants, many of whom are involved in a variety of radical groups, some of them domestic terrorist organizations, makes that a non-starter. However, unlike conservative groups which have been ‘debanked’ from Big Tech fundraising platforms, Antifa gains support through leftist 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) groups which includes fundraising platforms, bail funds, street medics and promotional media organizations.

One of the worst examples also operates arm in arm with the Democratic Party.

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund raises money through crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMePatreon and FundRazr (also utilized by the Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Cambridge) despite clear bans on raising money for illegal or criminal activity.

But its primary fundraising platform is also utilized by the Democratic National Committee.

Connected by a shortlink titled ‘DefendAntifa’, the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund, its fundraising page flying the Antifa flag and bearing a banner “Free All Antifa Prisoners” describes itself as providing “direct, immediate support to anti-fascists” including medical bills, legal defense and an “antifa prisoner fund”, uses the Action Network: a leftist 501(c)(4) and (c)(3).

The Action Network boasts that “after three months of using Action Network the DNC shattered all sorts of fundraising records.” The Antifa defense fund, which claims to have dispensed $75,000 in three years, is apparently also doing well with the overlapping DNC donor base.

What is the Antifa defense fund raising money for?

While the Action Network home page shows off a picture of Biden to promote its DNC fundraising, the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund’s blog features a story about helping out during the Biden inauguration riots featuring of black masked antifa thugs bearing a banner featuring an AK-47 and the message, “We don’t want Biden, we want revenge.”

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund post describes how “stuff got vandalized and Dak, one of the sole arrestees, was left holding the bag, taking a plea deal that kept him out of prison but also left him on the hook to pay for all of the property damage done in both actions – nearly $50,000USD in all!.That’s a lot of money for anyone to come up with. A donation page has been set up to help with those costs and the Defence Fund… decided to help contribute directly.”

This would appear to refer to the Biden inauguration riots in Portland during which the windows of the Democratic Party of Oregon headquarters were smashed and vandalized with the anarchist ‘A’. Police seized “Molotov cocktails, knives, batons, chemical spray and a crow bar”.

Is a fundraising platform used by the DNC also raising money for antifa rioters smashing Democrat offices? If so it would be one of many examples of Democrats incubating the leftist radicals who are destroying their party and the country.

The Action Network was set up by Senator John Kerry’s digital director during the Occupy Wall Street riots, is emblematic of the relationship between the Democrat establishment and the most extreme elements of the Left. As is an antifa defense fund raising money for a defendant in the Biden inauguration riots using the Action Network whose home page features Biden’s picture.

Beyond the DNC, the Action Network is the fundraising platform for the AFL-CIO, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s March, the DSA and Communist Party USA. The spectrum reflects the growing extremism that the Democrats have become complicit in and even directly support.

The Action Network is a 501(c)(4) and while the C4 status comes with greater freedom to engage in lobbying, it does not sanction any involvement in illegal activities.

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund is quite cheerful about them.

One post on the Antifa defense fund’s blog is titled, “Found Out” and features a photo of a man’s bloody head while raising money for the perpetrators.

The Antifa defense fund claims that the police “decided to charge someone, someone who asked us to help with their legal defense. And help is what we did. Because teaching people like Adam Kelly how the sentence ‘Fuck around…’ ends is never a crime.”

The legal system disagrees. The DNC and the Action Network clearly do not. But does the IRS?

Raising money to finance illegal activity is illegal for anyone, but nonprofits have their status regulated by the IRS.

IRS regulations state that, “not only is the actual conduct of illegal activities inconsistent with exemption, but the planning and sponsoring of such activities are also incompatible with charity and social welfare.” For example, “Rev. Rul. 75-384 holds that an organization formed to promote world peace that planned and sponsored protest demonstrations at which members were urged to commit acts of civil disobedience did not qualify for IRC 501(c)(3) or (4) exemption.”

“G.C.M. 36153, dated January 31, 1975, states that because planning and sponsoring illegal acts are in themselves inconsistent with charity and social welfare it is not necessary to determine whether illegal acts were, in fact, committed in connection with the resulting demonstrations or whether such a determination can be made prior to conviction of an accused.”

These rules have not been applied to the Left in some time. But they ought to be.

Order David Horowitz’s and John Perazzo’s new booklet: “Internal Radical Service: Abuse Of Taxpayer Dollars To Advance Leftwing Causes Illegally And Unconstitutionally”: CLICK HERE.


RELATED ARTICLE: Racism in the Name of “Anti-Racism”

RELATED VIDEO: Video: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

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

Liberal Policies Hurt People—Again

Well, well, well.  A crack in the edifice and a realization that liberal policies hurt people.

I’m talking about San Francisco, where a city council member introduced a measure to exclude illegal aliens who get arrested for dealing fentanyl from the protection of the city’s no-deportation sanctuary policy.  Roughly 70,000 people died from fentanyl and other opioid overdoses in America last year.  San Francisco officials believe illegal aliens make up the vast majority of fentanyl distributors in the city.

Sanctuary protection is not the only liberal policy that hurts people.  Here are some more:

California’s population is down 500,000 in the last two years.  People fled California cities plagued with homelessness, high crime, high housing costs, and lingering COVID restrictions. Every single one of these things has roots in liberal policies, policies that hurt people.  Businesses are also fleeing California because of liberal policies.  Elon Musk called California the “land of overregulation, overlitigation, and overtaxation” on his way out the door.  All preventable human-caused disasters.

It’s much the same story in Portland, which has lost population three years in a row.  “In Portland, many liberals are dodging stray bullets, losing catalytic converters to thieves, and sidestepping tents. Then they open their tax bills,” one news outlet wrote.  Even liberal media are calling Portland “broken” and saying everybody hates it.  “Portland has switched from attracting new arrivals to repelling its current citizens,” a left-wing alternative weekly candidly admitted.  What do you expect when Democrat politicians let Antifa run riot without consequence and business owners get robbed so many times their insurance companies stop paying off?  Liberal policies hurt people.

Not convinced yet?  I’m loaded for bear today:

High taxes, not only in California, but in New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have caused residents to pick up and move to low-tax states in recent years.

Family and medical leave laws in the U.S. have resulted in lower wages for women and kept their pay lower than men’s.

Government race preferences that give special benefits to companies owned and controlled by minorities discourage business formation with people of another race and discriminate against interracial couples.

Affirmative action puts minorities in elite colleges they can’t handle, whereas they might have thrived somewhere else.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want a wealth tax on billionaires.  ‘Eat the Rich’ may sound good to you, but you should know that, of the wealth taxes in 12 European countries in 1990, only three remain.  Why?  Because people flee.  According to the OECD, the wealth tax “was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn’t raise much revenue.”

More schools are teaching phonics because the liberals’ favored whole sight reading method doesn’t work for most students and actually cripples some for life.  Even the New York Times has had to admit phonics works.

Liberal policies have been in the ascendancy for decades despite evidence right in front of our noses they don’t work and they actually hurt people.  Three generations of insanity is enough.  It’s time to stop demonizing the political Right which has the best ideas and return to common sense solutions for what ails America.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Some of History’s Needless Blunders

At the risk of engaging in “Presentism,” let’s revisit a few of History’s unnecessary blunders. that shifted public opinion.

By 1814, British zeal to “chastise” their former colony was sagging. But when the British discovered their August 24 destruction of the U.S. Capitol included the burning of the Library of Congress, many leading Britons were appalled. That, plus their defeat at Baltimore (Recall, the “Star Spangled Banner”) combined with worries that Napoleon might escape from imprisonment on Elba, caused Great Britain to sign the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812. Mostly, we won.

In August 1914, when Germany invaded Belgium on its way into France, American public opinion was indifferent. In part, because almost ten percent of Americans were first- or second-generation Germans. But, when German troops needlessly burned down the library at the University of Louvain, American public opinion began to turn against Germany. Moral: Book burnings, as Hitler would also learn, are not good for public relations.

When the Deep State realized President Richard Nixon was serious about his dream of “regionalizing” the federal bureaucracy by shipping some agencies out of D.C. to be closer to the farmers and ranchers they were supposed to serve, Nixon’s presidency was doomed. The investigation into a needless burglary, aided by the Deep State’s Deputy FBI Director Mark Felt and two cub reporters panicked Nixon into a foolish cover-up. If Nixon had not acted on his dream of “regionalization,” the Watergate break-in might be a long-forgotten news item.

Wait. More blunders: In the spring of 2011, the FBI, down at the field office level, knew that an unusual number of men from the Middle East were enrolled in flight schools across America, paying cash for their flight simulator sessions that focused on flying large airliners.

On July 10, 2001, two months before the September 11th attacks, Phoenix-based FBI Special Agent Kenneth Williams, sent a memo up his chain of command expressing his concerns that some of the flight school students he was monitoring might have terrorist links. The Phoenix Memo went up into the FBI’s Automatic Case Management System and never reached the office charged with acting on possible terrorist acts.

At almost the same time as the Phoenix Memo, FBI agents in the Minneapolis Field Office sent a memo up their chain of command expressing their concerns about flight student Zacarias Moussaoui who paid $8,500 cash to receive flight training in a Boeing 747 simulator. The Minneapolis Memo, like the Phoenix Memo, disappeared into the black hole of the FBI’s Automatic Case Management System.

Although Robert S. Mueller III (yes, that Robert Mueller) took over the FBI a few days before 9/11, the blame goes all the way to J. Edgar Hoover and all the FBI directors who “stove-piped” agent reports. Given access to the two memos, even Sherlock Holmes’ Dr. Watson could have seen a crime was afoot.

Post-9/11, the panic-conceived Patriot Act was supposed to improve inter-agency communications. But, nine months after 9/11, the FBI was still using its “stove-pipe” Automatic Case Management System. Some say the FBI isn’t what it used to be. Perhaps, it never was. And that was before the FBI became the politically weaponized FBI of today.

Suggested reading: Where Do Good Ideas Come From by Steven Johnson, 2020. The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, 1962. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22, 2004.

©2023. William Hamilton. All rights reserved.