First Disney, now the MLB. Governor Ron DeSantis is done with wokeism and has had enough of companies politicizing events and issues in the Sunshine State.
According to a report from The Daily Wire, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis intends to veto $35 million dollars earmarked for a new training facility for the MLB team the Tampa Bay Rays. DeSantis is making the move in the wake of a wave of recent anti-gun statements released by the team in response to the events in Uvalde and Buffalo.
“DeSantis plans to veto a $35 million legislation for a Pasco County facility that’s earmarked for the Tampa Bay Rays’ spring training,” OutKick reported. “DeSantis’s decision is in response to the Rays politicizing recent shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde ahead of a matchup with the Yankees in May.”
From The Daily Wire…
The decision comes after the Rays published a statement last week saying that the tragedies “have shaken us to the core.”
“This cannot become normal. We cannot become numb. We cannot look the other way,” the statement said. “We all know, if nothing changes, nothing changes.”
The organization added that it was donating tens of thousands of dollars to far-left anti-Second Amendment organizations.
“The Rays organization stands committed to actionable change and has made a $50,000 commitment to Everytown for Gun Safety’s Support Fund,” the statement said.
“Everytown is the largest gun violence prevention organization in America. Rather than our usual game coverage on social media tonight, we’ve partnered with Everytown to amplify facts about gun violence in America.”
The expected move by DeSantis comes after he signed into law back in April a bill that stripped Walt Disney Co. from being able to govern the land where the Disney World theme park is located.
Placer County Sheriff candidate Wayne Woo “admitted to sexual relationship” with alleged minor, according to affidavit exclusively obtained by Project Veritas Action (PVA).
While the investigation determined the claim that the “alleged victim” was a minor was “unfounded,” the affidavit signed by former Chief Assistant District Attorney Charles Jeffrey Wilson notes the investigation was conducted by Woo’s subordinate “in a manner designed to conceal information” and was “objectively inappropriate.”
According to an affidavit exclusively published by Project Veritas Action, outgoing Placer County Sheriff Devon Bell should have referred a criminal complaint against Undersheriff Wayne Woo to the District Attorney’s office. The complaint alleged an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor who attended ride-alongs with Woo. Bell instead investigated the matter internally and deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the victim’s permission slip indicated she was 18 years old. Project Veritas Action was unable to find evidence that the Sheriff’s office investigated her age beyond the permission slip.
The affidavit states the DA’s office, “was never asked to assist in the investigation, nor was a case referred to our office for review.” Project Veritas Action interviewed multiple witnesses in undercover footage who corroborated much of the information in Wilson’s affidavit.
According to the affidavit, Sheriff Devon Bell told the DA’s office that Woo admitted having a sexual relationship with the alleged victim, but it was when she was 18 and not underage.
Outgoing Sheriff Devon Bell, and The Sacramento Bee, which is Sacramento’s biggest newspaper by circulation, have endorsed Woo in Tuesday’s upcoming election for Sheriff.
With Undersheriff Wayne Woo running in Tuesday’s election, EVERYONE deserves to know the truth about these allegations and the way the Sheriff’s department handled them.
If the allegations are in fact false and the investigation exonerated Woo, why is the investigation being kept secret from the Public?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2022-06-04 05:28:552022-06-04 05:28:55COVER-UP? Investigation into Allegations of Statutory Rape by California Sheriff Candidate Wayne Woo ‘Flawed’
After the horrific mass murders in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York, Senate Democrats took an opportunity to try and ram through new biased counterterrorism legislation which treats law enforcement and the military as infiltrated by “extremists” and seeks to limit counterterrorism training. The legislation was blocked after Republican senators held firm with Republican Senator Rand Paul calling the bill an “insult” to law enforcement.
“It would be the Democrat plan to name our police as white supremacists and neo-Nazis. I met policemen throughout Kentucky and I’ve not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of racial rage,” Paul said, according to The Hill.
The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il), is the latest iteration of legislation which has been on the Democrats’ wish list since early 2020. The bill would create a joint “Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee” and would create special Domestic Terrorism offices within DHS and DOJ and the FBI.
The legislation goes further, putting its thumb on the scales and directing these new offices to focus their attentions only on “white supremacist” terrorism by mandating extensive reporting requirements exclusively focused on that threat. This reporting would then be used to justify focusing domestic terrorism and law enforcement counterterrorism training solely on “white supremacist extremism.” Democrats previously shot down attempts by Republicans to include a broader range of potential terror threats within the language of the legislation.
Efforts by politicians to direct law enforcement to investigate only certain types of terror threats can have a severely deleterious effect on intelligence gathering and terrorism prevention. In 2019, the FBI faced substantial pressure from congressional Democrats to eliminate the use of the analytical category “Black Identity Extremism.” The same year the FBI reportedly investigated but cleared Frank James, who went on to conduct the NYC subway mass shooting that injured 10 people. James’ social media was replete with references to black identity extremist ideology.
Two decades after 9/11, it is readily apparent that a top-heavy, politicized federal bureaucracy approach to counterterrorism isn’t working.
Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. shouldn’t presume to tell police scattered around the country what the greatest terrorism threat is for their specific area of operations. Rather they should listen seriously to local law enforcement’s local knowledge and follow their lead.
A federal office of domestic terrorism should not tell local law enforcement officers what kinds of training they can receive, or which threats are most relevant to investigate. Federal agencies cannot continue to demand maximum cooperation from local agencies, hoovering up hard-earned information, only to be ever more secretive and unwilling to share information with those same departments, whom they are being told by politicians to treat as “infiltrated” by extremists.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2022-06-03 15:39:542022-06-03 15:40:26Partisan Push for Domestic Terrorism Office Targets Local Cops
Judicial Watch argues that Illinois election law violates federal law, which defines Election Day as “the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even-numbered year.” The complaint states:
Despite Congress’ clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots
Judicial Watch points out that the current Illinois election law allows vote-by-mail ballots received up to 14 days “after the polls close on Election Day” to be counted as if they were cast and received on or before Election Day. Illinois law also provides that “[e]ven vote-by-mail ballots without postmarks shall be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after Election Day if the ballots are dated on or before Election Day.”
Judicial Watch’s lawsuit notes:
The Board … advised that the number of ballots received after Election Day through November 17, 2020, could materially affect the unofficial election results.
[ *** ]
[Illinois’ own data indicates that] Illinois received 266,417 vote-by-mail ballots statewide during the period from November 3rd through November 17th.
[ *** ]
[M]ost of the 266,417 vote-by-mail ballots were received after Election Day, which would mean that as many as 4.4% of votes cast in 2020 were received after Election Day. [Emphasis in original]
Judicial Watch argues that holding voting open for 14 days past Election Day violates the constitutional rights of voters and candidates:
By counting untimely and illegal ballots received after Election Day and diluting Plaintiffs’ timely cast and received ballots, Defendants, acting under color of Illinois law, have deprived and are depriving Plaintiffs of rights protected under the First Amendment and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
“We are supposed to have an Election Day, not Election Weeks – or months. Illinois’ 14-day extension of Election Day beyond the date set by Congress is illegal, violates the civil rights of voters, and encourages fraud,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
In a separate Judicial Watch election lawsuit against Illinois, a federal court ruled in June 2021 that the lawsuit could proceed against Illinois officials for denying public access to Illinois’ voter registration database.
In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled its lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after the North Carolina removed over 430,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls.
In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to Maryland’s Democratic legislature “extreme” congressional redistricting gerrymander.
For more than 25 years, Judicial Watch has been known for its aggressive, leading-edge use of public records laws and lawsuits, as well as taxpayer, civil rights and whistleblower protection litigation to fight government corruption. Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of this effort, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.
Christine Svenson, Esq., of Svenson Law Offices in Palatine, Illinois, is assisting Judicial Watch with the lawsuit.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2022-06-03 07:13:262022-06-03 07:13:26Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Illinois to Stop Counting of Ballots Received After Election Day
The topic of pregnant and nursing moms getting vaccinated under encouragement and coercion is painful. It’s painful to research, painful to write about, and painful to learn how carelessly the most precious among us are being treated. The very essence of life and nature live within pregnant and nursing mothers. Reflecting on how little regard was paid to that life is upsetting, and everything I have to report in this post is done so with a heavy heart and a hope that we’ll get through this with a renewed sense of personal autonomy when it comes to medical decisions.
Notes to Keep in Mind:
The FDA + Pfizer actively worked to keep this data hidden from sight for our lifetimes.
Academic institutions, Medical institutions, and public health agencies are all still recommending that pregnant women take the Covid-19 vaccines as a precaution against Covid.
Dr. Naomi Wolf, Project Manager Amy Kelly, and the WarRoom/ DailyClout Pfizer Documents Volunteer Research Team have uncovered so many new important pieces of information that it’s getting difficult to keep up. I highly recommend pinning DailyClout to your homepage and checking their updates often. Their team of thousands of volunteers including hundreds of lawyers is working quickly, thoroughly, and efficiently.
A lot of information and serious concerns have emerged surrounding pregnant and nursing mothers and the possible effect that the Covid vaccines are having on their babies. Dr. Naomi Wolf has been appearing on Warroom regularly to provide us with updates on the findings of her and her team. On one appearance last week Dr. Wolf broke down some of the main red flags that have emerged, with the help of a female physician who studied the data:
Pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials when they were declared safe and effective for pregnant women. Pfizer, the FDA, the CDC, the entire “medical community” and your local employer who declared that you couldn’t come to work if you’re not vaccinated have concluded that this was safe and effective for pregnant women based on trials that were done on rats in France. There have not been any human clinical trials that have been concluded by Pfizer or other pharmaceutical companies to find out if these vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy or breastfeeding. There is currently one that’s still active, has no posted results and won’t conclude until July, 2022.
The animal studies that were conducted for the trial that the NIH based their conclusions on included 44 rats and were done over a period of 42 days. There are 2 main issues with this study:
This doesn’t fulfill the requirement to ensure that the drug will do no harm to the next generation
The doctors conducting the trials have all either been employed by or owned shares of Pfizer or BioNTech. There was an attempt to hide this fact by using their initials instead of full names on the study.
All Emergency Use Authorization excludes pregnant women.
Pregnant and nursing mothers were NOT ALLOWED to participate in phases 1,2, and 3 of human clinical trials. They were included on a list of 21 conditions that were not allowed to be recruited for trials. Page 33
The Department of Defense data is showing that female soldiers are having an astronomical rate of abnormalities and fetal problems. (NOTE- Mathew Crawford of RoundingtheEarth Substack has stated that he does not believe ANY of the DOD data is reliable, as it’s been demonstrably tampered with. Having said that, there are whistleblowers on the ground who corroborate that the rates of a variety of serious medical issues have indeed skyrocketed in 2021).
Adverse Events
In the Pfizer documents that were released thanks to legal force, there is data on reported adverse events since the rollout of the vaccine. On pages 12-13 of the document labeled “postmarketing-experience” Dr. Wolf’s Team 5 found:
28% of the 270 pregnancies + 4 fetus/baby cases of adverse events were categorized as serious, including:
Miscarriages
Fetal deaths
Uterine contractions
Pre-term deliveries
Premature rupture of membranes
Fetal growth restrictions
Breastfed babies were reported to have effects such as:
Infantile vomiting
Fever
Rash
Agitation
Allergy to the vaccine
4 nursing women reported adverse events such as:
Partial paralysis
Suppressed lactation
Breastmilk discoloration
Breast pain
Migraines
The document concludes that no serious adverse events have been detected. Dr. Wolf again questions whether we, as citizens of the United States of America, must begin to consider if all of these signs put together point to a serious national security breach. She has never seen anything as bad as what we’re seeing today in her 30 years in journalism.
There is a strong case that the potential risks for pregnant women from taking the Covid vaccine far outweigh the potential benefits.
On May 17, Dr. Wolf re-appeared on Warroom shortly after the FDA and the CDC authorized the Pfizer Covid-19 booster for 5-11-year-olds. In this segment, Dr. Wolf revealed some new information about data on the vaccine for pregnant and nursing mothers:
In Scotland there is an investigation happening right now that was triggered by a threshold that was crossed regarding the number of neonatal deaths. Its double the baseline amount, and this is the 2nd time in 7 months that the rate triggered an investigation.
Contrary to BBC claims (partially funded by Pfizer) that the rise in neonatal deaths cannot be connected to the vaccine, Dr. Wolf’s team, specifically Project Manager Amy Kelly, has found conclusive evidence to the contrary in Pfizer’s own documents.
Pfizer defined exposure to the vaccine as breastfeeding. This was not disclosed to pregnant women. A research team in Germany has confirmed to Dr. Wolf that breastmilk can deliver elements of the vaccine
A baby born to a vaccinated mother died after being born bleeding from the nose and mouth.
A mother received her 2nd vaccine dose on March 17, and within 24 hours her breastfed infant developed a rash and became inconsolable. The baby died 2 days later, with evidence of liver damage and a rare blood disorder.
The history of the claims of safety and efficacy regarding the Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant and nursing mothers will hopefully result in individuals who will be held criminally liable.
Missing Data
DailyClout’s expert Team 5 research team has reported some alarming numbers from Pfizer’s documents regarding missing information. In one group of 270 pregnancies, there were “no known outcomes” for 238 of the cases.
That leaves us with 36 known outcomes. Of those 36 known outcomes, 28 babies died before or at birth. It would be really helpful to know the outcome of the remaining 238 cases.
Pieces of the Puzzle – A Timeline
March 2021 –50 participants in a clinical trial reported becoming pregnant, with some of them subsequently being dismissed from the trials. Cindy L. Weis of the DailyClout found that those 50 women have still not had their profiles updated to include pregnancy outcomes.
In the same March 2021 document, we can see that Pfizer themselves admits the following:
Available data are insufficient to inform vaccine-related risks in pregnancy.
Adverse effects from the vaccine on a breastfed child are a possibility.
July 2021- In Waterloo, Ontario between the months of January – July 2021, there were 86 babies who were born dead, otherwise known as stillbirths. The baseline rate is usually 5-6 per YEAR. One brave MP named Rick Nicholls raised the issue in a parliamentary session with great concern and passion. In response, the Minister of Health gave the answer we’re all used to. The vaccine is Safe and Effective. Just to note, there was no noticeable rise in stillbirths in 2020, the year of Covid.
September 2021 – Scotland launched it’s first investigation into an abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths that was triggered by surpassing a threshold in infant deaths that hadn’t been seen since the 1980’s. (Note- this spike did not occur in 2020, the Year of Covid)
Ashmedai over at Resisting the Intellectual Literati wrote an extensive report on fertility issues and the vaccine back in September 2021.
Is There a Plausible Basis For Fertility Concerns?
In my own community, the most prominent concern on the minds of many of the vaccine hesitant, especially young women of childbearing age, is the fear of an adverse effect on fertility. Possibly because of this, fertility concerns have also been derisively dismissed by the doctors with more passion and vengeance than for any other type of adverse effect…
August 2021- NPR reported on a survey out of the University of Chicago to investigate reports of changes in menstrual cycles after the vaccine. They received 140,000 responses.,
I ran my own VAERS report using only a few pregnancy-related keywords. The list is 769 events long, and here’s a screenshot of just a few from the first page:
December 2021 – IVF clinics reported unusual issues after the mass vaccination campaign began. Steve Kirsch covered it thoroughly.
IVF clinics started having serious problems right after the vaccines started rolling out
I just got off the phone with a woman who works at a large IVF clinic. She has to remain nameless to avoid being fired for speaking out. Nobody is supposed to know about the serious problems happening in the IVF clinics. Let me tell you what is really going on and the scientific study that explains it…
6 months ago · 498 likes · 457 comments · Steve Kirsch
January 2022- NIH funded a study that was released that reported a slight causal relationship between the Covid-19 vaccines and a lengthier menstrual cycle.
February 2022- An EU health agency announced an investigation between Covid-19 and disruptions in menstrual cycles based on reports coming in.
Josh Guetzkow reported on data from Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel. Vaccinated mothers were experiencing spontaneous abortions/miscarriages/stillbirths at a rate that’s 34% higher than their unvaccinated counterparts.
Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women
Data from Rambam hospital in Haifa reveal a stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who never received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 8% among women who were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection…
After spending days reading reports about the horrible negative effects of fertility that are coming out in droves, I had to at least try and get some sort of response from Pfizer. After sitting on hold for a while, a gentleman named Ron got on the line. When I asked if the Covid-19 vaccine is safe for a pregnant woman to take, he read me the entire safety warning from Pfizer’s website. I then told him that I know many women who have had serious disruptions to their menstrual cycle, as well as numerous women who experienced miscarriages late term, shortly after getting one of the Pfizer vaccines. I asked him what he knows about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, given all the new information that’s come out from the FOIA requests.
He responded that he can pass me along to his managers, but first he has to read another statement, this time from the CDC. He proceeded to verbally read it for 10 minutes while I waited patiently. When he finished, surprised that I was still on the line, he asked if I had any more questions. I said yes, and asked if he wanted to be a whistleblower. He said he noted my response and passed me along to Olivia, which was pretty much a repeat of the first conversation.
I left contact information with both of them just in case, but somehow I highly doubt we’ll get a response. I did note to both of them that should they want to get on the right side of this scandal and begin to help those who are suffering, they should do so before the entire thing crumbles down.
Now What?
We’re now in May 2022. The claims of safety and efficacy don’t match their own internal documents that they tried to hide for 75 years. Yet academic institutions and public health agencies continue to insist it’s recommended for pregnant women to receive Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. Until when? Until the wave of misery gets so large that it’s no longer deniable? No one is coming to save us. Groups like DailyClout, VSRF, America’s Frontline Doctors, Children’s Health Defense, and ICAN are sources of inspiration that there are still good men out there, as well as a source of hope that through their strength and efforts, we’ll come out of the other side of this with some integrity still left in some medical professionals.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-06-03 06:36:242022-06-04 20:04:53Vaccinated Women – Fertility Signals Are Coming Through
According to the Washington Post, 91% of Trump coverage by the three broadcast networks, which include ABC, is negative. When a right-wing lunatic massacred people of Mexican descent at an El Paso Walmart in August 2019, the networks blamed the attack on Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric about immigrants.
ABC News promptly produced a story to support the mainstream media’s narrative that violence by Trump-supporters had reached epidemic proportions. Twisting itself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify the charge, the network scoured the country for instances where bad apples among the 63 million people who voted for Trump perpetrated violence allegedly inspired by him. After an exhaustive search, ABC News came up with a grand total of 36 violent crimes where Trump’s name was invoked.
Some quick math: 36 bad apples divided by 63 million Trump voters equals 0.0000005. In other words, ABC News hyped a story about violent acts allegedly perpetrated by zero point zero zero zero zero five percent of Trump’s supporters. That’s five hundred-thousandths of one percent. Some epidemic.
If ABC News ever decides to do a connect-the-dots story about Democrat bad apples who commit political violence, here are a few examples they can include:
The deranged 24-year-old who murdered nine people in Dayton, Ohio was an Elizabeth Warren–supporter who had been incited by the Democratic Party to hate Republicans, ICE, and the police.
Having been taught to hate Republicans, a Bernie Sanders–supporter shot and nearly killed GOP rep. Steve Scalise.
After Rep. Scalise was shot, Republican rep. Claudia Tenney received an email that read, “One down, 216 to go.”
Seventy-one-year-old female staffer for California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was knocked unconscious by Trump-hating Democrats during a protest outside Rohrabacher’s office.
The FBI arrested man for threatening to assassinate Republican rep. Martha McSally over her support for Trump.
Trump-hating Democrats fired multiple shots through the window of a San Antonio ICE office in a targeted attack against the agency that enforces nation’s immigration laws.
Trump-hating Democrats angrily confronted DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a D.C. restaurant.
A Trump-hating Democrat waitress in Chicago spat in Eric Trump’s face.
Peter Fonda: “Trump’s 12-year-old son should be ripped from his mother’s arms and put in a cage with pedophiles.”
A Democrat college professor was arrested for beating Trump-supporters with a U-shaped bike lock.
A tweet by a Democrat front group promoted the gruesome murder of ICE agents with step-by-step instructions:
A hate-filled Democrat threatened to kill Trump-supporters at the re-election headquarters of his GOP congressman.
“I’ll f— you up!”: A Democrat instructor assaulted conservative students at anti-Trump campus protest.
Trump-hating Democrats terrified Tucker Carlson’s wife and children at home while he was at work: “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”:
BREAKING:
A mob has gathered outside Tucker Carlson’s home demanding his family leave DC because he is a "racist scumbag."
"Every night you spread fear into homes — we remind you that you are not safe either"
To whatever extent the journalistically corrupt networks reported any of the above incidents, the coverage was fleeting at best, and not once, to the best of my knowledge, have they ever “connected the dots” of such violent incidents, as ABC News did in its political hit job on Trump.
What has happened to the modern Democratic Party?
Just days after the 2016 election, six members of the Democrat front group Red Guards/Austin were arrested for violent attacks on supporters of President Trump. The six communist revolutionaries are pictured below in booking photos taken by the Austin Police Department.
A few weeks later, after Trump took office, a nighttime protest by Occupy Oakland, another Democrat front group, called on Trump’s opponents to “Become Ungovernable” by inciting chaos across America. A tweet by the communist group boasted this: “We won this night. We will liberate this land. We will fight fascists. We will dismantle the state. This is war.” And war is exactly what was declared by the Democratic Party’s “resistance” to a lawfully elected president, a war on our constitutional system of electing the country’s leader. Dating to the time Donald Trump became the GOP nominee, the Democratic Party has given a wink and a nod to Red Guards Austin, Occupy Oakland, and every other communist group in America to violently act out hatred not only against Trump, but his supporters as well.
Here’s why I bought AR-15s for my sons: when Lenin was asked how the Bolsheviks planned to keep the Russian masses from listening to counterrevolutionaries, he replied in so many words, “We must teach our followers to direct unbridled hatred toward our opponents.” A half-century later, Saul Alinsky taught Lenin’s “teach them to hate” strategy to the post-1960s Democratic Party, which turned it into an art form.
In August 2016, before Trump was even elected, frenzied rank-and-file Democrats in Minnesota put Lenin’s strategy into practice by repeatedly punching an elderly man in the kidney and spitting on other attendees who were forced to walk a gauntlet of political hatred as they left a Trump fundraiser in Minneapolis. Please take 30 seconds to watch how successful the Democratic Party has been at inciting its followers to direct seething hatred toward Republicans.
To the best of my knowledge, not a single prominent Democrat forcefully condemned the outrageous incident in Minneapolis, or hundreds upon thousands of others like it. And why would they? With invaluable help from the Clinton campaign and the DNC, their own “resistance” movement has intentionally incited anti-Trump violence at every turn.
When a political party teaches its followers to hate the other side, things are not likely to end well. If Trump is re-elected, I fear that the party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky, and Obama will quietly turn loose its dogs of war in a seditious attempt to destabilize America, to make it “ungovernable” until Democrats regain power. If that happens, widespread anarchy will follow. And that’s why I bought my law-abiding sons AR-15s and enough ammunition to defend themselves — and their country — against a possible bloody insurrection incited by a once-honorable party that has betrayed the constitutional republic it swore to protect and defend.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Eidsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Eidson2022-06-03 04:58:302022-06-03 15:23:58Why I Bought AR-15s for My Sons
Black Lives Matter’s goal fits a Marxist paradigm that stretches all the way back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
The organization Black Lives Matter has removed from its website a page that included language condemning America’s “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”
The page, titled “What We Believe,” included various public policy positions unrelated to police brutality and police reform. The Washington Examinerdiscovered on Monday the page had been removed.
“Page Not Found. Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist,” the page now reads.
Black Lives Matter has removed its "What We Believe" page from its site.
The page included many beliefs and objectives that had nothing to do with police brutality or police reform, including a stated goal of disrupting America's "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure." pic.twitter.com/PkyeA8VBUR
The Wayback Machine archived the page, however, and it contains a lengthy description of the organization’s tenets and objectives. Among the views expressed is a desire to “disrupt” the traditional family structure.
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
According to the Examiner, BLM did not respond to the paper’s request for comment, so it’s unclear if the page was deliberately removed.
Whatever the case, BLM’s endorsement of this language should come as little surprise. As Brad Polumbo has shown, there are effectively two Black Lives Matter phenomena: the Black Lives Matter™️ organization and “black lives matter” as an informal movement.
The latter involves people fighting in good faith for police reform who believe African Americans suffer disproportionately from police violence. The former, Black Lives Matter™️, is an organization co-founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi that has roots in Marxism.
“We actually do have an ideological frame[work],” Cullors said of her organization in 2015. “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
As I pointed out in a 2017 article, Karl Marx was interested in abolishing much more than just private property. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and his associate Frederick Engels defend attempts by Communists to abolish the traditional family.
“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” Marx wrote. “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.”
Marx and Engels proceeded to compare the nuclear family to public prostitution, before explaining why it was natural and desirable for the institution to “vanish.”
“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital,” Marx and Engels wrote. “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”
From where does this hostility to the family stem? Marx and Engels offered clues.
“The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services,” Engels wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, quoting Marx. “It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.”
The hostility to the traditional family did not die with Marx and Engels, however. One of the first steps the Bolsheviks took after seizing power was to begin a decades-long struggle to abolish marriage and weaken the traditional family.
“The issue was so central to the revolutionary program that the Bolsheviks published decrees establishing civil marriage and divorce soon after the October Revolution, in December 1917,” writes Harvard historian Lauren Kaminsky. “These first steps were intended to replace Russia’s family laws with a new legal framework that would encourage more egalitarian sexual and social relations.”
A 1926 article from The Atlantic, written by a woman living in Russia at the time, describes these efforts in detail. The term “illegitimate children” was abolished, and a law was passed that allowed couples to divorce in “a matter of a few minutes.” Legislation was introduced to eliminate distinctions between legal wives and mistresses, including granting property rights to the unmarried consorts.
“Chaos was the result,’ the Russian woman wrote. “Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.”
About a half century later, the Chinese Communist Party introduced a different version of state-enforced family orchestration. It’s “one-child policy” (1979–2015), the most extreme population planning policy in world history, placed limits on the number of children Chinese families could have.
Decades before the policy went into effect, Party Chairman Mao Zedong (1893–1976) famously explained why it was necessary for the state to manage family procreation and the labor stock.
“(Re)production needs to be planned. In my view, humankind is completely incapable of managing itself,” Mao said. “It has plans for production in factories, for producing cloth, tables and chairs, and steel, but there is no plan for producing humans. This is anarchism—no governing, no organization and no rules.”
Even today the aversion to the traditional family remains strong in socialists. A 2019 article in The Nation titled “Want to Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish the Family” offers a glimpse of the modern socialist critique of the institution.
“We know that the nuclear private household is where the overwhelming majority of abuse can happen,” author Sophie Lewis explains. “And then there’s the whole question of what it is for: training us up to be workers, training us to be inhabitants of a binary-gendered and racially stratified system, training us not to be queer.”
For true believers of collectivism, there’s little question that private family matters are also state matters. Socialism requires collective control of resources, and humans are the ultimate resource. This is why the traditional nuclear family, which places authority in the hands of parents rather than the community, is an affront to so many socialists.
The scholar Robert Nisbet has explained that the family is one of the three pillars of authority outside the state, along with the church and civic organizations. All three of these institutions offer humans something essential to the human experience: community.
Nisbet believed all three pillars served as important checks on centralized political power, which is why Nisbet saw the decline of the family, church, and civic organizations in America as an ill omen for liberty.
“…the quest for community is an impulse that stems from human nature. All yearn for participation and for a sense of belonging within a cause or body greater than the single person,” Nisbet wrote in The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics and Order of Freedom (1953). “If the desire for community cannot be filled in church, in family, in neighborhood, or in locality, then it will be filled instead by the central State.”
It’s unclear why Black Lives Matter™️ scrubbed the anti-nuclear family language from its website. What’s clear, however, is that its previously stated goal to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” fits the Marxist paradigm that stretches back a century and half.
Perhaps the removed page reflects a change of heart. On the other hand, it could simply be a tactic to conceal its Marxist roots. As Dan Sanchez and I wrote in a recent FEE article, in recent decades purveyors of socialism have shown a tendency to shun the Marxist label even while embracing its ideals.
”There are a lot of people who don’t want to call themselves Marxist,” Eugene D. Genovese, an eminent Marxist academic, told The New York Times in a 1989 article on the mainstreaming of Marxism in US universities.
We don’t know for certain why many individuals and groups advocating doctrines rooted in Marxism tend to reject the Marxist label—Cullors’s 2015 confession that she and Garza are “trained Marxists” appears to be a mistake of candor—but it seems likely adherents have gleaned a basic truth once observed by the writer Upton Sinclair.
“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label,” Sinclair observed in a private 1951 correspondence with fellow socialist Norman Thomas.
Many people and organizations of good faith support the black lives matter movement because they believe all people deserve equal treatment and due process before the law.
But Americans should be careful to not confuse the broader black lives matter movement with Black Lives Matter™️, an organization whose goals may be antithetical to freedom and family—even if they no longer say so.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-02 16:01:102022-06-02 16:01:10Black Lives Matter’s Goal to ‘Disrupt’ the Nuclear Family Fits a Marxist Aim That Goes Back a Century and a Half
“I respect the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners. At the same time, the Second Amendment,like all other rights, is not absolute.” – Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., June 2, 2022, White House
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“ – Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution
The “broken glass theory” in criminology states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.
When you allow crime you get more crimes. Worse, if you idolize any criminal then you are, by definition, wanting and encouraging more people to become criminals.
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., his administration, Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Party have made gun control front-and-center issue for the 2022 midterm election. At the same time they are breaking more and more glass as they do so.
Tuesday, May 31st, 2022 on MSNBC, Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that after last week’s deadly shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, “gun violence protection is going to be on the ballot” in the upcoming midterm elections.
Gun violence protection is code for draconian gun control.
At the same time Biden and Democrats continue to make convicted felons and criminals, like George Floyd, into virtual martyrs. George Floyd is the epitome of a broken glass.
Before and since the Uvalde Massacre there has been an ongoing effort to idolize criminals and criminality.
On May 25th, 2022 Barack Hussein Obama tweeted the following:
As we grieve the children of Uvalde today, we should take time to recognize that two years have passed since the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. His killing stays with us all to this day, especially those who loved him.
What Obama has done is make it a priority to demonize the police while elevating a convicted felon into a cult idol. If you are black and a criminal then you’re idolized by the likes of Barack Hussein Obama. This fits the narrative of the Black Lives Matter movement and their goal to instill the myth that black lives matter more than any and all other lives.
Their combined messaging is that no matter how evil blacks are the police are far worse.
Stacey Abrams serves as a board member and governor of a UPS family foundation that has repeatedly voiced support for defunding and abolishing the police, according to Fox News.
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Abrams has tepidly tried to distance herself from the #DefundThePolice movement in the past, but she’s still listed as a board member and governing person at the Seattle-based Marguerite Casey Foundation, which tweeted #DefundThePolice as recently as March of this year and #AbolishThePolice as recently as February.
The foundation has also tweeted support for abolishing law enforcement and prison systems. On Feb. 11, the group shared a story about the “Prison Industrial Complex in Atlanta” and tweeted “#AbolishthePolice.” The foundation also hosted an event in early February titled, “Becoming Abolitionists—A History of Failed Police Reforms & Vision for True Public Safety.”
In October 2021, the foundation held a book giveaway event promoting a book of essays called Abolition For The People: The Movement For A Future Without Policing & Prisons by cop-hating communist Colin Kaepernick.
Abrams has received at least $52,500 in income from the far-left foundation, according to her financial disclosures. Her campaign told Fox News Digital that Abrams does not hold the same views as the foundation.
If I were against law and order and didn’t care about the deaths of the 19 children and 2 adults massacred by 18-year-old Salvador Ramos I would:
Make public schools gun free zones and not allow principals, law enforcement officers, teachers to be trained and armed to defend themselves and their students.
I would use every school shooting to make America a gun free zone, using the myth that guns kill people, not evil people kill people.
I would use people like Golden State Warriors basketball Coach Steve Kerr who “joined dozens of Oakland Unified School district parents and students who are calling for the district to dismantle its internal police force.”
I would shout from the roof tops and in front of news cameras and from the school house to the White House “gun control, gun control, gun control and more gun control.”
I would use filmmakers like Michael Moore to state on television, “We will not acknowledge that we are a violent people, to begin with. This country was birthed in violence with genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun. This country was built on the backs of slaves with a gun to their backs to build this country into the country that we got to have. We do not want to acknowledge or two original sins here that have a gun behind the ability behind our ability to become who we became.”
Then I would get actors like Rob Reiner to blame the killing of innocent children by a deranged boy on my political opponents. I would put these word into Reiner’s mouth, “The blood of every child that dies of gun violence in this country is on the hands of the Republican Party.”
Of course, I would have my evil servant from CNN Wolf Blitzer to state without proof that guns are “weapons of mass destruction” and are too easy to get in America. “Every time there is an incident like this, you hear about efforts to deal with mentally unstable people who can certainly go out there and buy a weapon of mass destruction, go out there and buy a gun or rifle or some sort of assault-type weapon and go to there and eventually start killing wonderful, wonderful, people,” Blitzer blathered for me, the devil.
I would have the president of these United States call for totally disarming American citizens while the blood of the 19 Uvalde, Texas children is still fresh, the flags at half staff and their young bodies not yet put in consecrated ground.
Finally, I would have Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. unveil his Anti-Policing Policy on May 25, 2022, the 2nd anniversary of George Floyd’s death. Just a few days after a boy named Salvador Ramos massacred 19 children and two teachers.
The Bottom Line
Worshiping evil doers and making a cult image of George Floyd, as though he were god in the black community, will have the continuing effect of more crime the black communities. For example like in these top five deadliest cities:
St. Louis, Missouri with 64.54 murders per 100,000 residents,
Baltimore, Maryland with 58.27 murders per 100,000 residents,
Birmingham, Alabama with 50.62 murders per 100,000 residents,
Detroit, Michigan with 41.45 murders per 100,000 residents,
and Dayton, Ohio with 34.18 murders per 100,000 residents.
Nothing says it all or better than this tweet by Jason Whitlock and his take on cops at the Uvalde Massacre school shooting,
I'm not defending the actions of the officers. But we've demonized law enforcement to the point that there are far fewer rewards for being a hero, for taking risks. When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences. https://t.co/1YvYt121qt
Whitlock is stating the absolute truth, “When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences.”
If you want more crime, anti-social behavior and civil disorder then simply demonize the police and idolize the criminal.
You then will create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes like murder, rape and human trafficking.
Biden’s border crisis is the epitome of the broken glass theory. Want more crime then let the criminals cross the border, for each individual, regardless of age or reason, who crossed our borders illegally is a criminal and has broken our American glass window.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-02 07:24:092022-06-06 13:11:38CULTURAL ROT: The Left’s War Against Guns But Not Criminals
We have been reporting on how the media will not cover news that is negative or sheds a bad light on Democrats, but they are quick to report propaganda about those who aren’t Democrats.
This includes the Memorial Day weekend from hell for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Initially it was reported that Nancy’s husband Paul was arrested for DUI following a car crash.
Now we learn there’s more, much more, to Paul’s story.
Now @SpeakerPelosi husband was caught with child porn and crack pipes?!.. Holy hell let's get some arrests going on NOW.. What. The. Fuck. 🤢https://t.co/JkcLZPCcW2
Paul Pelosi, the 82-year-old husband of U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was re-arrested this weekend for possession of child pornography and crack cocaine. The MSM reported on the first arrest, but not the second arrest.
Sources indicate Pelosi paid off the prosecutor’s office to keep the second arrest “off-the-books.”
[ … ]
Pelosi was originally released on bail, but was re-arrested after police found child pornography on his phone, as well as crack cocaine and pipes in his car. The child porn and drugs were not found during the initial search.
It appears that some social media sites aren’t covering this story either.
Clarence Thomas is trending, but Paul Pelosi with kiddie porn and crack pipes isn't 🤔
House Speaker and Democrat California Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives just got rocked by a child sex scandal.
The Assistant to the Sergeant at Arms for the House has been arrested and hit with charges on ten felonies related to possessing child pornography.
Stefan Bieret, 41, was charged after police executed a search warrant on his home in Burke, Virginia, on Thursday, Fairfax Police said on its website.
“A 41-year-old man has been arrested and charged with ten felonies related to the possession of child pornography. The investigation began when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) was notified of a potentially illicit image being uploaded to a Dropbox account. NCMEC notified the Northern Virginia Washington, D.C. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force of this CyberTipline lead. The owner of the Dropbox account was determined to reside in Fairfax County. Detectives from our Major Crimes Bureau’s Missing and Exploited Persons Squad were notified in August and assumed the investigation. Detectives executed a search warrant on the Dropbox account and discovered additional images of child sexual abuse material,” the police department said.
“Subsequent search warrants led detectives to the identity of the owner of the Dropbox account as Stefan Bieret, 41, of Burke. Yesterday, detectives executed a search warrant on his home and recovered multiple electronics. Bieret was arrested and charged with ten counts of possession of child pornography. He was taken to the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center and held without bond,” it said.
Democrats and their supporters like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffery Epstein, Gisselle Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Hunter Biden and Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. appear to be “minor attracted persons”, a.k.a. pedophiles and pederasts.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-02 06:47:062022-06-02 09:08:43Nancy Pelosi’s Husband Paul Charged with Possession of Child Pornography and Crack Cocaine
I joined Kara McKinney on OAN’s Tipping Point to discuss FBI involvement in any number of terror attacks in the United States.
The massive evidence of corruption in the FBI that has come to light since 2015 only confirms that the organization is desperately corrupt, working against the American people, and in immense need of serious reform. If that reform is not forthcoming, it should be disbanded. In 2015, ISIS targeted me and other American civilians in an attack on U.S. soil for exercising our constitutional rights. All the evidence points to the fact that instead of protecting us, the FBI agent involved was egging on the attackers. Did Obama’s FBI want to make an example of those who supposedly insulted the prophet of Islam after Obama had said “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”? The FBI could have dispelled these suspicions immediately, but instead completely stonewalled our requests for information. The archives on this and other cases must be opened – and the whole place fumigated.
In 2015, a free speech symposium I organized, was the target of the the first Islamic State (ISIS) attack on U.S. soil. A “60 Minutes” special on CBS subsequently revealed that an undercover FBI agent accompanied the terrorists in a separate car as they approached the Center. Many questions remain unanswered regarding his role in the attack and the FBI’s responsibility to forewarn in such cases. (Editor’s note: ISIS is also known as Islamic State, ISIL, and Daesh.)
The undercover agent, alias ‘Steven Jane’, had been communicating with jihadists Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi through encrypted messages for some time. According to “60 Minutes,” a few weeks before the attack he urged them to “Tear up Texas.” Simpson responded, “bro, you don’t have to say that … you know what happened in Paris … so that goes without saying. No need to be direct.”
The mastermind behind the Garland attack, Erick Jamal Hendricks, was also communicating with the FBI as well as with Ibrahim Simpson, who along with Nadir Soofi opened fire on the event.
Hendricks made it clear that he was an ISIS supporter and spoke of using acres of land to train recruits, the agent said.
“My work is for Allah. It is my full-time job,” said Erick Jamal Hendricks, making it clear once again what jihad violence is all about. It’s ironic that he said it to an FBI agent, with the FBI committed to the claim that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing to do with terrorism. Did the agent try to convince Hendricks that he was misunderstanding Islam?
Obama’s FBI knew about impending attack and did nothing. They wanted us dead.
While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with, because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility, it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of the freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?
“The individual who murdered 19 elementary school children and two of their teachers on May 24, 2022, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is responsible for his actions and crimes, as are all the shooters who have attacked the American public in recent years.” – The Soufan Center
Did Salvador Rolando Ramos act alone or did he have a plan, was he on a specific mission and was there a financial sponsor?
On May 24, 2022, 18-year-old Salvador Rolando Ramos fatally shot nineteen students and two teachers, and wounded seventeen other people, at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Earlier in the day, he shot his grandmother in the forehead at home, severely wounding her.
QUESTIONS: Who, what, where, when, why and how?
The answers to who, what and where are crystal clear: Salvador Rolando Ramos; Uvalde Massacre; and May 24, 2022.
As of 2017 (and likely still today), the Sinaloa Cartel is overall the most active drug cartel involved in smuggling illicit drugs into the United States and trafficking them throughout the country.
According to The Border Report:
A federal judge has sentenced a Fort Hancock [Texas] rancher to 38 years in prison for letting Mexican criminals use his property as a smuggling corridor for drugs and unauthorized migrants.
[ … ]
On Aug. 14, 2020, a search warrant was executed at Morales’ ranch. Authorities found four undocumented migrants there and testimony at trial indicated Morales had been involved in migrant smuggling since November 2019.
[ … ]
The search also turned up 11 firearms and 1,833 rounds of assorted ammo. Morales faced the firearm charges because of a 2009 conviction in the Southern District of New York involving a charge of conspiracy with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. He was sentenced to 50 months in prison (four years and two months) for that.
We know that the Biden administration is not enforcing our border laws and hampering the U.S. Border Patrol from stopping the flow of illegals, drugs and humans being trafficked across our Southern border. We know that drug cartels have become more active since Biden took office and their ability to influence neighborhoods, towns, cities and even states has increased dramatically.
Given where Ramos lived, just 75 miles from the Mexican border it’s possible that he was approached or sponsored by cartel members to carry out the massacre at Robb Elementary School.
The city of Uvalde is largely Hispanic and cartel members may already be in the city. These cartels may have an interest in and may be monitoring the families of Border Patrol agents who live there.
How Did Ramos Afford the guns and ammunition?
According to The Independent, “Salvador Ramos legally bought two AR-15 rifles and 1,657 rounds of ammunition for his 18th birthday.” Ramos’ 18th birthday was May 18th, 2022. Remember the shooting was on May 24th, 2022.
According to Indeed.com the average salary at Wendy’s where Ramos worked as a crew member is $12.66 an hour or $506.40 per week.
Ramos posted pictures of the two rifles he purchased on social media here. One of these two rifles was a DDM4, made by Daniel Defense, which starts at a price of $1,870.00. These rifles are AR-15s retail for $1,870 plus tax—the same amount and model number listed on the receipt Ramos reportedly sent via Yubo. So both rifles cost approximately $3,740 plus tax. One of the rifles has an EOTECH XPS2 Holographic Weapon Sight which on Amazon costs a minimum, depending on the model, of $577.00. Ramos purchased approximately 1,657 rounds of ammunition. The cost of 1,657 rounds of 5.56 caliber ammunition is approximately $3,144.00.
So let’s break it down:
Two AR-15 rifles = $3,740.00
One EOTECH XPS2 site = $577.oo
Ammunition = $3,144.00
TOTAL = $7,461
So, Ramos who makes $506.40 a week spent at least $7,461 on these two rifles and ammunition within a three day period. NOTE: This does not include the semiautomatic pistol he carried.
The Bottom Line
We’re wondering if this attack was orchestrated by one of the drug cartels to send a message to all border patrol agents, many who live with their families in Uvalde, not to mess with them by killing their children.
We know that Ramos had two high end weapons plus 30 magazines of 5.56 NATO ammunition worth thousands of dollars. He worked in a minimum wage job at Wendy’s and some part time work with his uncle it’s unlikely he could have saved up enough to pay for the guns and ammunition.
He had to have had some training to do what he did without remorse.
As we understand it he got into two gun fights before entering the school. In both cases the law enforcement officers were wounded.
We also understand he had a protective vest.
BTW, Cartel members are ruthless and immoral just like Ramos.
Also, how did Ramos know that there was a door open at the school? Did he or someone else recon the school?
There are many questions about Salvador Rolando Ramos and his motive for the Uvalde massacre.
It’s not a secret that the most powerful drug cartels worldwide are based in Mexico. Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel are the two most dominant and dangerous, according to DEA’s reports.
We know Ramos was a loner and did not get along with his classmates and has been characterized as a bully.
In a September 2017 study on Gangs and Children The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry found, “Some children and adolescents are motivated to join a gang for a sense of connection or to define a new sense of who they are. Others are motivated by peer pressure, a need to protect themselves and their family, because a family member also is in a gang, or to make money.”
Some of these conditions apply to Salvador Rolando Ramos. This is what we must be looking at not Ramos’ choice of weapon.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-01 15:39:322022-06-07 08:50:50Was the Uvalde Massacre a Drug Cartel Warning to Border Agents to Back Off?
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s The Faulkner Focus, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) weighed in on the ongoing trial of corrupt, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann, arguing that the Clinton campaign “peddled” “false information” about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in the Steele dossier to the media and FBI because “they were out to get President Trump.”
“I think Sussman lied. I think it is material,” Jordan asserted. “Whether a D.C. jury will convict him, you know, only the good Lord knows. But I think the big takeaway is what we learned a few days back when we learned that Secretary Clinton told Sussman to take information — false information — to the press that was also then taken to the FBI. I mean, step back and think about this. This is the former secretary of state; this is the former first lady; this is the former … United States Senator from the state of New York and candidate for one of the major parties for President of the United States, and she is encouraging a false narrative to be taken to the press, and, of course, it was also taken to the FBI.”
He added, “I mean, I think that is huge — so much so that the former attorney general called it seditious.”
Clinton Says “You Cannot Be Civil” With Republicans
In the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s failed attempt, in the fall of 2018, to use specious sexual assault charges to block the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked Mrs. Clinton to comment on various recent instances where leftist protesters had disrupted the Senate’s Kavanaugh hearings, had tried to intimidate Republican senators, and had engaged in acts of lawlessness to vent their rage. Mrs. Clinton replied: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-06-01 05:50:502022-06-01 05:52:34Rep. Jim Jordan: Hillary Peddled ‘False Info’ About Trump to Media, FBI
That question must haunt the families of the nineteen children and two adults who were massacred in Uvalde, TX last week in light of recent revelations about the police response.
Accounts of what happened have been shifting and inconsistent. But, according to a timeline published by the Associated Press, while children were trapped with the killer in two adjoining classrooms, as many as nineteen armed officers waited in the hallway outside for over an hour before a rescue was finally executed.
During that time, some of the trapped children called 911, begging for police to be sent in. On one of those calls, gunshots could be heard.
“Roland Gutierrez,” reportsThe New York Times, “who represents the area in the State Senate, said the family of one of the children killed told him that their daughter had been struck by a single bullet to the back and had bled to death. ‘It is possible she could have been saved, if they had done their jobs,’ Mr. Gutierrez said.”
Just as “justice delayed is justice denied,” rescue delayed can be rescue denied.
A harrowing video circulating online shows family members desperately pleading (some of them screaming) with officers outside the school to rescue their children. Two officers seem to have one man detained on the ground.
— TheFamily'sSoup TV (@FamilysSoupTV) May 25, 2022
Again, why did they wait? The question has undoubtedly baffled many around the world, especially parents of young children. Such a delay seems unfathomable.
While “why it happened” is even less certain than “what happened,” certain reports about the police response raise important considerations about government delays in general that may be relevant to this troubling question.
Why Bureaucracies Are Slow
It is important to remember that all government law enforcement agencies are bureaucracies. And all bureaucracies have certain behavioral tendencies owing to their institutional structure and the incentives that structure generates.
The great economist Ludwig von Mises analyzed these tendencies and incentives in his 1944 book Bureaucracy.
In that book, Mises identified “slowness and slackness” as among the inherent features of government bureaucracy that no reform can remove.
We have all experienced the “slowness and slackness” of government bureaucracy: with the post office, the DMV, the public school system, etc. That’s why the animated movie Zootopia had sloths working at the DMV and everyone got the joke. And police bureaucracies are no exception to this reputation.
Why is this so? In part, it is due to another indelible feature of bureaucracy: that it is, as Mises wrote, “bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do. His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.”
Sometimes a delay is simply due to the fact that the government employee is too tied up in red tape to respond in a timely manner. The timely response may be outright prohibited by the rules. Or the delay may be owing to Kafkaesque procedural mazes that first must be navigated or chains of command that must be climbed for permission.
Lethal Red Tape
This may have been a major factor of the possibly deadly delay in Uvalde. According to The New York Times, command on the scene,
“…fell to the chief of a small police department created only four years ago to help provide security at Uvalde’s eight schools. Its chief, Pedro Arredondo, had ordered the assembled officers to hold off on storming the two adjoining classrooms where the gunman had already fired more than 100 rounds at the walls, the door and the terrified fourth-graders locked inside with him, the state police said. (…)
Officers were told, under Chief Arredondo’s direction, that the situation had evolved from one with an active shooter — which would call for immediately attacking the gunman, even before rescuing other children — to one with a barricaded subject, which would call for a slower approach, officials said.
That appeared to be an incorrect assessment, according to the state police director, Steven McCraw: Gunfire could sporadically be heard inside the rooms, including on continuing 911 calls by the children.”
The Times also reported:
“The degree to which some law enforcement officers on the scene disagreed with the decision to hold back became more apparent on Saturday, as more became known about their frustrations in the protracted chaos of Tuesday’s shooting.
Specially trained agents from the Border Patrol, who arrived more than 40 minutes after the shooting had begun, had yelled for permission to go in and confront the gunman. ‘What is your problem?’ they asked, according to an official briefed on the response.”
If any officer on the scene earlier harbored a similar disagreement, it may not have made a difference, because “his discretion to act according to his own best conviction,” to use Mises’s words, would have been seriously restricted by “pedantic observance of rigid rules and regulations”
Again, Mises considered such features of bureaucracy to be unreformable. Why? He argued that it is the only way that a government bureaucracy can be made at all accountable to the public. A bureaucrat with a free hand is even more dangerous than a bureaucrat with his hands tied.
“If one assigns to the authorities the power to imprison or even to kill people,” Mises wrote, “one must restrict and clearly circumscribe this power. Otherwise the officeholder or judge would turn into an irresponsible despot.”
“Ultimately,” reports the Times, “the police officers assembled outside won permission to enter the classroom. A team of tactical officers from the Border Patrol and local police agencies breached the door and killed the 18-year-old gunman, Salvador Ramos, after he had killed 19 children and two teachers inside.”
The officers who confronted and killed that murderer of children did a magnificently heroic deed. But we have to wonder whether any of those deaths were due in part to bureaucratic delay—to the need for officers on the ground to “win permission” to save lives? We may never know. And even if so, are such delays unavoidable when it comes to responding to crime? Mises seemed to think so, believing that “coercion and compulsion” (including policing) must necessarily be delegated to government, and so is unavoidably bureaucratic.
The Bureaucracy Blob
Whether he was right about that or not, Mises argued that the problem with bureaucracy is not that we have failed to reform it, but that we have overextended it far beyond what he, as a classical liberal like America’s Founders, regarded to be its proper domain of protecting rights.
Instead, bureaucracy has encroached on matters that properly belong in the hands of families and the market: institutional domains that don’t require rigid rules and regulation to stay accountable.
Families tend to be held accountable by human nature: like the familial love that drove Uvalde parents Jacob Albarado and Angeli Rose Gomez to immediately race to successfully rescue their children themselves, at the risk of their own lives and in defiance of the officials.
And in the market, producers are held accountable to consumers by the pursuit of profit and the avoidance of loss: market dynamics that help keep places like amusement parks and retail stores for the most part expeditious and safe.
Governments have recourse to neither familial love nor profit and loss, and so must resort to what Mises called “bureaucratic management,” which is inherently slow and less responsive to its “customers,” even when those “customers” are literally begging for prompt service, like the Uvalde parents who begged for government agents to rescue their children.
Mises characterized the blob-like tendency of modern bureaucracy to absorb more and more of human life as a march toward totalitarianism.
“It is quite correct,” he wrote, “as the opponents of the trend toward totalitarianism say, that the bureaucrats are free to decide according to their own discretion questions of vital importance for the individual citizen’s life. It is true that the officeholders are no longer the servants of the citizenry but irresponsible and arbitrary masters and tyrants. But this is not the fault of bureaucracy. It is the outcome of the new system of government which restricts the individual’s freedom to manage his own affairs and assigns more and more tasks to the government.”
For example, our system of compulsory schooling has assigned educating and securing our children for most of the day to the government. And to the extent that private gun ownership is regulated, we have still further restricted the individual’s freedom to protect his own family and more fully entrusted the security of his children to the government.
Parents should realize that, as the appalling delay in Uvalde may exemplify, bureaucracies are institutionally unworthy of that trust.
This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-01 05:39:102022-06-01 05:39:10How Bureaucracy May Have Cost Lives in Uvalde
Breitbart News reports that the Marxist revolutionary group Black Lives Matter (BLM) railed against the “white supremacist” institution of “policing,” decrying its roots in “racism” and “slave patrolling,” while attacking politicians who support “our killers,” in a series of tweets Thursday.
In the wake of President Biden signing an order to improve accountability in policing, the official BLM Twitter account whined, “Maintaining a white supremacist institution like policing costs Black lives. This continued commitment by politicians to support our killers makes them accessories to our demise.”
“Politicians have been protecting systems of policing as if it could magically abandon its roots of slave patrolling and anti-Black violence,” BLM continued in subsequent tweets. “Banning choke holds and requiring body cameras doesn’t keep us safe. More money for ‘training’ doesn’t keep us safe.”
Fact check: policing does not have roots in “slave patrolling and anti-Black violence.” Policing is a very basic law-and-order measure employed by different cultures going back many, many centuries. Ancient Rome, for example.
But according to the corrupt, racist, neo-Marxist BLM movement, Biden’s executive order “willfully ignores the inherently racist origins of policing & advances the same ideas over and over again as if somehow it will magically make old, outdated approaches work.”
“Halfway measures will not save our people from white supremacy and state violence,” BLM tweeted.
Fact check: white supremacy today has absolutely zero political and cultural power in America. And most black Americans disagree with the BLM radicals about policing — they want more, not less, of a police presence in their communities.
BLM’s D.C. Chapter Objects When Shot Police Officer Is Hailed As “Hero”
After a Metropolitan Police officer was shot and wounded by a barricaded black suspect on the night of January 24, 2022, the Washington, DC chapter of BLM posted a series of tweets asserting that the American public should not “jump to conclusions” reflexively depicting such officers as “heroes.” “Let’s wait till we have all the information (isn’t that what y’all tell us),” the chapter tweeted, condemning “the difference in how people talk and act when an officer is hurt vs when they hurt a Black person.” “This is the point we’ve been making for months,” said a subsequent tweet. “Tear jerker press conferences and proclamations of heroes coming soon. Imagine if people knew these folks’ name. Being black in DC is more dangerous than any job.”
BLM-DC also posted a link to its #StopMPD campaign, which called for an end to “police violence and terror” while rejecting claims that not all officers are “bad” people. “This assertion is almost always coupled with examples of law enforcement officials who step outside of their assigned duties to ‘help’ Black people and champions the belief that we can change systems by changing the individuals who work within this system, but not [changing] the system,” the #StopMPD campaign declared. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work.” The #StopMPD webpage also described the District of Columbia as an “occupied police state” that had always been hostile to nonwhites.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2022-05-31 05:27:252022-05-31 05:27:37BLM UNHINGED: Policing is Just a ‘White Supremacist Institution’ Rooted in ‘Slave Patrolling’
Reparations has been moving toward the mainstream of the Democratic Party, thanks to my colleagues in the media who want to repair society (as my friend and best-seller author Tuvia Tenenbom put it: “I say to my colleagues, you don’t have to be a journalist to preach to people. You want to preach the people? Do what all the preachers do: get a job as a preacher. I mean, if this is what you like to do, why do you have to schlep? Have a little church, invite the people and collect money from them.)
With the other conservative people, I was against reparation. I was stupid, I was wrong. I want reparations for the harm that was done to the Black people. The perpetrators must pay!
On April 16, 1862,
President Lincoln signed bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no. The Democrats didn’t want the slaves to be free. The Dems tried to block the bill and keep blacks chained up.
July 17, 1862,
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free.” The Democrats, every one of them, voted against the freedom of slaves.
January 31, 1865,
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by the U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition. Every Republican wanted the slaves freed and made equal, almost all the Democrats voted against.
April 8, 1865,
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
February 5, 1866,
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (Republican-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” reparation by distributing land to former slaves. The famous “40 acres and a mule” program was proposed by the Republicans and taken away by the Democrats.
April 9, 1866,
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law. Once again the Republicans coming to the aid of the blacks after the Democrat President vetoed giving black citizenship. The Democrats fought hard to keep the black man down…
May 10, 1866,
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all black citizens; One hundred percent of Democrats voted no. Not a single Democrat wanted to let blacks have rights as citizens of America.
June 8, 1866,
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens. Ninety-four percent of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats voted no. The Democrats wanted to go back to the days of slavery…
July 19, 1867,
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans. The Democrats fought hard to not allow blacks to legally vote.
October 7, 1868,
Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”…
And more recently, Republicans condemn the 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (Democrat-WV). The Democrats did everything in their power to deny blacks equal rights. If it wasn’t for the Republicans fighting for black rights, the Democrats would still have them using separate bathrooms or picking cotton…
So I say yes, all registered Democrats, all and each of them, should pay reparation to the Black people. They have done them too much harm.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-30 07:52:102022-05-30 07:54:06I changed my mind, I’m in favor of reparations
