Capitol Police Deliberately Given ‘Stand Down’ Order During January 6th Protests, Report Finds

This was planned – the final coup mortel (mortal blow) in the Democrat insurrection plot; election theft, then criminalization and murder even (Ashli Babbit) of those that objected.

NY Times Confirms: ‘Stand Down’ Order Given to Capitol Police During January 6th Riot

By: Kyle Becker, April 13, 2021

The New York Times has finally confirmed what many political observers had been saying all along about the Capitol riots: It was pre-planned, the Capitol Police knew it was coming, and authorities effectively gave a ‘stand down’ order.

A new 104-page report dropped by an internal investigator shreds authorities for intentionally hampering the police response on what has subsequently been claimed was a “coup,” an “insurrection,” and an attempt to “overturn” the results of the 2020 election.

The Inspector General of the Capitol Police laid bare all of the disturbing issues involved with the way the January 6th Electoral College security was mishandled.

“A new report by the Capitol Police’s internal watchdog found that department leaders overlooked key intelligence in the run-up to the riot on Jan. 6, including a warning that ‘Congress itself is the target,’ and barred the force’s riot response unit from using its most powerful crowd-control measures,” the New York Times reported.

“The 104-page document, entitled ‘Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol,’ is the most searing portrait yet of the lapses and miscalculations around the most violent attack on the Capitol in two centuries,” the Times continued. “It adds significant new detail not unearthed in congressional hearings and is likely to inform a coming overhaul of the agency promised by lawmakers.”

“In a 104-page document, the inspector general, Michael A. Bolton, criticized the way the Capitol Police prepared for and responded to the mob violence on Jan. 6,” the Times said about the unpublished report. “The report was reviewed by The New York Times and will be the subject of a Capitol Hill hearing on Thursday.”

At the Trump impeachment trial, it was revealed that Congress had been warned by the now-resigned Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund an attack from extremists was coming days before the uprising. House impeachment manager Rep. Stacey Plaskett revealed the explosive information on the second day of the Senate trial.

“The day before the rioters stormed the Congress an FBI office in Virginia also issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and, quote, war, according to internal reports,” she said.

“Leading up to the event there were hundreds, hundreds of posts online showing that his supporters took this as a call to arms to attack the Capitol,” she continued. “There were detailed posts of plans to attack online. Law enforcement warned that these posts were real threats and even made arrests days leading up to the attack.”

Rep. Maxine Waters also revealed in an exclusive interview just after the capitol building uprising she warned the capitol police chief days prior to the attack:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the outgoing Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund ignored warnings that an attack by domestic terrorists was imminent days before insurrectionists imposed their will and overtook the hallowed government building on Jan. 6.

“First of all, to the families of those who died, they need to sue the U.S. government because the Capitol Police and others who had the responsibility of organizing security for this event failed,” she claimed.

“Either they are incompetent, or they lied, or they’re complicit,” she stated. “This is a very complicated combination of individuals and operations that I think played a role in this attack on our Capitol.”

The former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund, forced to resign under heavy pressure from Democrats, fired back a response to Speaker Pelosi. It undercuts the Democrats’ narrative that there were no requests made for heavier security. In fact, the Congress was warned six times before the capitol riots, and yet, the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms, also both resigned, failed to act upon those requests.

But a “secret history” of the 2020 campaign reveals that radical organizations, major corporations, and party operatives assessed that there would likely be a riot if Trump lost and they could blame the president for ‘inciting’ it. The Time article lays it out:

On March 3, Podhorzer drafted a three-page confidential memo titled “Threats to the 2020 Election.” “Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election, and that he will reject anything but his own re-election as ‘fake’ and rigged,” he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.”

Major General William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, confirmed many of Americans’ worst suspicions about the January 6th capitol riots in his explosive Senate testimony in early March. The National Guard had been prevented from providing ample security due to what he described as concerns about “optics.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Riot Declared in Portland After Protesters Set Police Station On Fire

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Pentagon to Root-Out White Extremists, but Silent on Black Man involved in Shooting at Fort Detrick

I’ve been checking every day or so to see if there is news, any news, on the Navy medic, Fantahun Girma Woldesenbet, who attempted to kill two fellow Navy men in Frederick, Maryland a week ago.

I figured by today the military would be ready to report a motive for the attempted murder of a white Corpsman and a Hispanic Corpsman, but nothing.

Speculation is that since the shooter’s name is common in Ethiopia that he is an immigrant from Africa either directly or as first generation. But, we will likely never hear any further information because the shooting does not fit the media narrative.

We don’t know much more than what was reported in the day or so after the attack. Was new American Woldesenbet on a mission, or was he (just) a nutcase?

And, it took a day for a photo of the shooter to be released—released by Frederick Police—not directly by the Navy. Perhaps they were forced to release it because people were sending photos of other black men around on social media claiming they were Corpsman Woldesenbet.

From Heavy.com:

Fantahun Girma Woldesenbet Photo: Frederick Police Release First Picture of Shooting Suspect

Frederick Police released the first photo of shooting suspect Fantahun Girma Woldesenbet this afternoon, the day after they say he shot two Navy sailors and was fatally gunned down at Fort Detrick.

Woldesenbet, a U.S. Navy hospital corpsman, allegedly wounded two people at a military installation about 10 minutes from Fort Detrick, a U.S. Army base where he worked Tuesday, April 6, 2021. He was shot and killed at the base when officials said he fled a stop at a checkpoint and brandished a gun at about 8:45 a.m. He was 38 and lived in Frederick. The two injured victims survived.

More here,  but there isn’t much.  Seems the story is being dropped down the memory hole.

And, maybe that is because the military is busy, busy, busy attempting to root- out the white supremacists Biden and Harris are sure are hiding within the ranks.

Meanwhile, only days after the Maryland shooting, the Pentagon’s new chief says the hunt is on for the extremists, an undertaking clearly inspired by the January 6th demonstration at the Capitol.  The Biden cabal believes they are insurrectionists.

I would like to know someday if Fantahun Girma Woldesenbet is an extremist of some stripe, but we will likely never know.

From Newsmax:

Defense Secretary Memo Addresses Extremism in US Military

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III signed a memo on Friday in which he calls for “immediate actions” to weed out “extremist behavior” in the military.

The new orders come after Austin spoke with advisers and reviewed the results of the Defense Department-wide stand down issued in early February.

The memo said, “The vast majority of those who serve in uniform and their civilian colleagues do so with great honor and integrity, but any extremist behavior in the force can have an outsized impact.”

A study begins today!

Austin has commissioned a study “on extremist behavior within our Total Force, to include gaining greater fidelity on the scope of the problem.” And this group will meet around April 14 and be given 90 days to submit their “recommendations for medium-range and long-range plans to combat this scourge” to Austin.

More here.

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

Situation Report: Antifa/BLM Riots Continue in Minneapolis and Portland

Hundreds rioted in the Brooklyn Center suburb of Minneapolis after a police-involved fatal shooting April 11. 20-year-old Daunte Wright was shot and killed following a traffic spot. Police reportedly determined that Wright had “outstanding warrants” and were attempting to arrest him when Wright re-entered his vehicle and attempted to flee the scene. Body camera footage released on April 12 appears to show one of the police officers yelling “I’ll taze you,” and “Taser, taser, taser!” just prior discharging their firearm.

The incident is under investigation.

Tensions rose swiftly throughout the day Sunday, as a protest march quickly devolved into rioting. Reports indicate that dozens of stores were vandalized and robbed. Minnesota State Police and National Guard troops were deployed to the area to reestablish order, and at least 500 National Guard troops are expected to remain in the area.

In one video shared via social media, activists can be heard on a loudspeaker encouraging the targeted doxxing of police and their families.

During the disorder, two men were reported fatally shot by unknown assailants, while a number of other shootings without fatalities were also reported overnight. While the exact motive for each shooting is unknown, it is not uncommon for local criminal elements to utilize the cover of riots and unrest to engage in targeted violence against rivals while police are fully engaged in breaking up rioting.

Meanwhile in Portland, Antifa elements once again launched attacks against the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, a regular target of Antifa-organized riots. Rioters attempted to barricade the ICE facility from the outside, and then used incendiaries in an attempt to burn the building. Such arson attacks are a regular feature of Antifa violence. Despite this a majority of cases involving Antifa attacks on federal law enforcement and federal buildings have reportedly been dismissed.

Antifa-linked groups –including the Youth Liberation Front—have issued calls for actions in Minneapolis, the Pacific Northwest, Chicago, and the District of Columbia in response to the shooting.

COLUMN BY

Kyle Shideler

Kyle Shideler is the Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Shideler specializes in Islamist groups operating in the United States, having spent over a decade researching and writing on their history, doctrine, and impact. Read his complete bio here. Follow Shideler on Twitter at @ShidelerK.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Huge Debts:’ Millions in Earnings Failed to Satiate Hunter Biden’s Hunger for Crack, Prostitutes, Luxury Cars

When the law applies only to politicians and members of the political opposition – civil war always follows.

‘Huge Debts:’ Millions in Earnings Failed to Satiate Hunter Biden’s Hunger for Crack, Prostitutes, Luxury Cars

By:  Edwin Mora, Breitbart, 10 Apr 2021:

Hunter Biden owes massive credit card debt after living like a high roller with access to millions of dollars linked to business dealings overseas that proved insufficient to satisfy his ravenous appetite for drugs, prostitutes, and luxury cars, the Daily Mail reported Friday.

The Daily Mail published a bombshell report surrounding the potentially incriminating contents of a laptop purportedly owned by Hunter that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and eventually given to the FBI.

On Friday, the Daily Mail unveiled contents of the laptop that go well beyond the emails first reported by the New York Post in October 2020 detailing Hunter’s lucrative overseas business deals that helped him lead a drug-addled lifestyle, with prostitutes, and luxurious rides.

Ultimately, his lifestyle left him broke, unable to support his drug and prostitute habit and support his family.

The Daily Mail summarized its long bombshell report, noting:

Hunter Biden’s wild spending left him with huge debts to credit card companies and desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes, DailyMail.com can reveal
Pictures, documents, emails and texts obtained by DailyMail.com from Hunter’s laptop reveal he spent thousands of dollars on strippers and prostitutes
Biden even threatened to take $20,000 out of his daughter’s education savings account
Pictures found on the laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack bagged up on a scale, and Hunter naked and in bed with women
The numerous expenses left him strapped for cash when it came to supporting his new family
In an April 2017 email, [Hunter’s company] Rosemont Seneca Vice President wrote to Hunter detailing how he faced total bills of $476,231.60, including $60,467 on three credit cards and $320,417.85 in unpaid federal taxes

In 2019, the FBI seized the laptop in connection to a money-laundering scheme. Last December, Hunter and his then-president-elect father admitted that the U.S. Attorney in Delaware was investigating the younger Biden over his federal taxes.

Hunter reportedly made between $50,000 and $100,000 monthly working for corruption-linked Ukrainian gas conglomerate Burisma between 2014 and 2019, helping him fill his coffers with at least $6,070,150 from 2013 to 2016, the Daily Mail found.

Nevertheless, the news outlet noted, “Leaked emails reveal how Hunter Biden was desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes – after blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury cars, prostitutes, drugs, and designer clothing.”

According to the documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Hunter kept a 2014 Porsche, an Audi, a 2018 Ford Raptor Truck, an $80,000 boat, a Range Rover, Land Rover, BMW, and Chevrolet Truck.

He also spent thousands of dollars on strippers – including one who had his child – suspected prostitutes, and massive amounts of crack.

Hunter told an Arkansas judge he could not pay child support for the child he fathered with stripper Lunden Roberts, even as he rented a $12,000 per month home in Hollywood and was driving a Porsche Panamera at the time.

Ultimately, he settled the case with Roberts out of court after the judge ordered him to produce his financial records.

The Daily Mail noted:

The bombshell cache of 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails, more than 2,000 photos, and dozens of videos from Hunter’s laptop and authenticated by experts retained by DailyMail.com are packed with revelations conveniently missing from his newly published memoir, Beautiful Things.

The pictures, documents, emails, and texts reveal that despite reporting more than $6 million of income from 2013 to 2016, Hunter’s bacchanalian expenses left him with huge debts to credit card companies and the tax man.

Some of the pictures show Hunter half nude, with only a bathrobe on like the late Hugh Hefner from the Playboy mansion, only instead of a cigar, Hunter is reportedly shown smoking what appears to be a crack pipe.

Other pictures found on his laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack on a Cheech and Chong branded scale and Hunter naked and in bed with likely prostitutes.

Like most drug addicts, Hunter sunk low, threatening to take money from his daughter’s education savings account.

The walls began to close in as his business dealings, described as shady by critics, came under the microscope of conservative media outlets such as Breitbart News. At the same time, the Democrat-allied mainstream outlets ignored Hunter’s overseas deals.

Although his money situation reportedly appeared to substantially improve in 2020, allowing him to pay the District of Columbia a $453,890 tax bill just six days after it was issued, that did not last long.

Hunter was unable to keep his high roller lifestyle and support his family on over a half a million dollar a year salary, and he had to borrow money from one of his companies to keep himself solvent, Eric Schwerin, the president of Hunter’s company Rosemont Seneca, reportedly wrote in an email in January 2017,

“As his finances descended into disarray and his assistants begged him to pay his mounting bills, the President’s son lashed out threatening to cut staff pay, take money from his daughter’s educational savings, and complained about his alimony bills,” the Daily Mail noted, adding:

In October 2018 email from Hunter’s accountant shows that by that year his tax debt had ballooned to an eye-watering $804,000, including $600,000 in personal taxes and $204,000 for one of his businesses that received money from Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

It appears Hunter is not the only Biden with a distorted version of reality.

In the few public comments Joe has made recently amid the fall to rock bottom by his son, his then-president-elect father blamed other people for his son’s downfall.

When announcing the feds were investigating Hunter for failing to pay taxes, Biden said last December he is “deeply proud of his son who has fought through difficult challenges, including personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”

During a softball interview earlier this month, Hunter told CBS News that the laptop “certainly” could be his, but he denied dropping it off at the repair shop.

RELATED ARTICLE:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

VIDEO: New Movement #ForgetYourMask Launched

Jennifer Cabrera (Leader, #ForgetYourMask) discusses her new movement, #ForgetYourMask, and reveals how it is a fight for humanity – and for basic human rights.

WATCH:


EDITORS NOTE: This Glazov Gang video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Please support The Glazov Gang because we are a fan-generated show and need your help to keep going. Make a contribution or set up a monthly pledge. Thank you! PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/Glazovgang

Indiana Democrat Malik Muhammad Indicted for Attempted Murder During 2020 Summer Insurrection Riots In Portland

No media coverage from the Ministry of Propaganda, of course.

Indiana man indicted for attempted murder during 2020 Summer riots in downtown Portland

By: FOX 12 Staff, Apr 5, 2021

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – A 24-year-old Indiana man was indicted on Monday for attempting to murder Portland Police Bureau officers by using explosive devices during the 2020 riots in downtown Portland.

According to court documents, Malik Muhammed had allegedly traveled to Portland in September to engage “in multiple criminal acts” and then returned to Indiana.

The incidents include:

Sept. 5, Muhammed engaged in tumultuous and violent conduct near the Portland Police Bureau’s East Precinct, resulting in a grave risk of causing public alarm.

Sept. 21, Muhammed threw a “large burning object” toward a PPB sergeant’s patrol car during a protest near the Penumbra Kelly Building. Police described the object as a large yellow bottle similar to a beer growler filled with liquid and stuffed with a rag. The device didn’t explode. Officers found a price tag that helped them find out where the bottle was purchased. Surveillance video from the store shows Muhammed and another person buying a large number of bats and beer growlers, including two yellow ones.

On Sept. 23, Muhammed threw a large yellow bottle similar to the beer growler toward a group of officers outside the Multnomah County Justice Center. When the bottle landed, it exploded and a large fireball cascaded outward. One officer’s lower leg caught fire for a moment.

According to court documents, officers searched Muhammed’s cell phone and found a list of a shopping list that included common ingredients used to make a Molotov cocktail.

Oct. 11, Muhammed used a metal baton to smash out windows at the Oregon Historical Society, Portland State University, Sprint T-Mobile, Bank of America and Ben Bridge Jewelers. He was arrested, and a loaded pistol magazine was found in his pocket. The gun was found nearby. In total, the pistol and magazine contained 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

An indictment was filed on March 22 that charged Muhammed with:

Two counts of second-degree attempted aggravated murder
Two counts of first-degree attempted assault
Four counts of first-degree attempted murder
Two counts of second-degree attempted murder
Six counts of first-degree criminal mischief
Four counts of riot
Two counts of unlawful manufacture of a destructive device
Two counts of unlawful possession of a destructive device
One count of unlawful possession of a firearm
One count of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm
Two counts of unlawful use of a weapon

On Friday, Muhammed was arrested in Indianapolis on multiple warrants, including attempted aggravated murder, first-degree attempted murder, second-degree attempted murder, unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in public.

He remains at an Indiana Jail.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Unveils Plan To Win Back White House And Congress In Speech Before Key RNC Donors

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

VIDEO: Mike Lindell Not Giving Up, New Documentary Shows How They Stole the Presidency

Mike Lindell TV Releases Irrefutable Election Theft Proof on New Television Special That Features World Renowned Physicist

Watch here.

If you watched Absolute Proof  back in February, you will be blown away with Lindell’s latest.

He is truly an amazing man because he continues to fight to prove that the 2020 Election Steal is the biggest cyber crime in world history, and in the face of lawsuits and efforts to kill his business, he fights on.

Everyone must take an hour today to watch his latest and spread it far and wide.

And, then your job is to be as brave as he is and figure out what you can do where you live to expose election fraud.

On election night President Trump was winning by a larger margin than the enemy had predicted. So they went to work changing computer algorithms that had been originally set to steal the election at a different number of ballots, thus the strange anomalies that we saw in key swing states.

But, it is important to note that Lindell and his guest believe the fraud was more widespread than in just the swing states.

I’m heading on over right now to My Pillow and do some shopping.

Use the TGP code and help Gateway Pundit which is exposing more voter fraud on an almost daily basis.

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

4 Reasons Gun Control Can’t Solve America’s Violence Problem

These 4 underlying sociological problems, not guns, are the key drivers of American violence.


The gun-control paradigm—the idea that the solution to American violence is more laws restricting guns—is unhelpful.

Gun control doesn’t work. Indeed, any statistical connection between gun policy and violence is tenuous. But even if gun control was effective, it would still be flawed.

Gun control burdens the free exercise of the constitutionally-protected Second Amendment right to bear arms, so it’s subject to compelling legal challenges and is flatly rejected by many Americans. In addition, the enforcement of stringent gun control invariably inflicts heavy burdens upon other civil liberties—especially in poorer communities and among marginalized populations.

Gun control’s coexistence with the values of a free society is, at best, an uneasy one. But it’s even less viable in the particular context of the United States. Consider the 400 million guns already in private circulation, plus the totally irreversible and ever-increasing ease of the self-manufacturing of firearms. No matter what laws are passed, widespread distribution and access to firearms are (and will remain) immutable facts of American life—especially for people who are willing to break laws.

In this context, it’s evident that gun control cannot solve the problem of violence in this country. The following four observations about American violence suggest some promising alternative paradigms.

If you visit the statistics page of the website for the anti-gun group Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, you’re immediately confronted with an enormous banner: “38,000 AMERICANS DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR—AN AVERAGE OF 100 PER DAY.” However, that banner omits the fact that most of those deaths are suicides. A report in the Harvard Political Review noted that suicides accounted for nearly two-thirds of 2019’s gun deaths.

If we meet gun control groups like Giffords on their own terms and accept the inclusive statistic of “gun deaths” as our metric, it’s clear that gun violence ought to be addressed primarily through a mental health and suicide-prevention paradigm.

Can gun control be part of a suicide prevention strategy?

It’s hard to see how. Virtually any sort of firearm would suffice to take one’s own life, as well as other means. So, there’s no hypothetical in which popular gun control proposals like an “assault weapons ban” or magazine capacity restriction would make a difference concerning suicide.

Moreover, gun control measures such as red flag laws that seek to deprive people of their guns on an ostensible mental-health basis can actually deter struggling people from seeking the help they need. In this sense, a gun-control approach to suicide prevention is not merely useless—it’s actually counterproductive.

There is an enormous literature on suicide prevention and the best ways to help people who are struggling with mental health issues. Discussions of different medications, cognitive therapies, wellness practices, and other measures are far beyond the scope of this article. But this is where our resources and efforts should be focused.

Attempting to stop suicide by imposing gun control is like trying to stop drunk driving by banning cars: it’s a completely implausible “solution” that elides the actual problem at hand.

The boogeyman of the gun control lobby is the proverbial “mass shooter,” some deranged, antisocial individual who carries a “military-style” rifle into an ostensibly safe place, like a school or grocery store, and indiscriminately slaughters innocent people. He often has hateful or bigoted motivations for this act.

While such shootings do happen, they are incredibly rare and account for a vanishingly small proportion of the homicides that the U.S. experiences in a given year. Per 2019 FBI data, just 2.6% of homicides are carried out using a rifle. In fact, clubs and bare fists are used to kill more people annually than rifles. And of the mass shootings that we do see, many are gang-related; concerning, but not wholly aligned with the gun control narrative.

Now, consider these facts: almost two-thirds of child murder victims are killed by their own parents. Nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by their partners or ex-partners.

And while it’s common knowledge that most victims of homicide are killed by someone they know, a surprisingly large proportion—perhaps as low as 1 in 8, but possibly as high as 1 in 5—are killed by an actual family member. Conservatively, a given homicide victim is about five times more likely to have been killed by a family member than killed with any sort of rifle.

The gun-control movement’s resources and efforts are overwhelmingly guided and driven by the “mass shooter” scenario, hence their fixation on policies like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions. But, even if such policies could be meaningfully enforced and implemented (they can’t), it’s hard to imagine those sorts of policies having much bearing on partner and familial violence.

The mass shooter fixation, and the gun fixation more broadly, is utterly unable to curb violence of this kind. Instead, resources and efforts would be much better spent addressing partner and familial violence. Organizations that help women to escape dangerous relationships or address other aspects of domestic violence are poised to do much more good than organizations with broad and quixotic disarmament missions.

The failure of the United States’ 20th century experiment with alcohol prohibition has been well-documented. But one unintended consequence of Prohibition was a dramatic increase in violence. Without access to legal means of resolving conflicts, people involved in the illicit alcohol business—for which there was a massive consumer demand—handled their disputes and protected their interests with gunfire.

While romanticized depictions of bootleggers and mobsters have made for entertaining fictional fare, the true story hardly evokes nostalgia. The nation’s homicide rate increased over 40% during Prohibition. The violence was especially pronounced in large cities, which experienced a homicide rate increase of nearly 80%. Even as more resources were directed to law enforcement, the rate of serious crimes soared and prisons overflowed. Had Prohibition been allowed to continue, the already-disastrous situation would likely have deteriorated even further.

Fortunately, Americans realized that the costs of Prohibition were too high. Repealing Prohibition was the clear solution. With the ratification of the 21st Amendment, the nation’s homicide rate dropped precipitously, falling to well below pre-Prohibition levels within just a few years.

Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten the lessons of Prohibition. The War on Drugs, ostensibly fought to make our communities safer, has in fact made them more violent.

Noah Smith (who’s certainly no champion of gun rights), writing for The Atlanticobserved:

Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

In short: it’s Prohibition all over again. But the effects of Prohibition’s modern-day incarnation are even more insidious. After waging the Drug War for decades, we must also consider its secondary and tertiary consequences. As Thomas Eckert points out, the Drug War contributes to family disintegration, poverty, and gang recruitment.

These underlying sociological problems, not guns, are the key drivers of American violence.

Poverty and lack of opportunity are strongly associated with violence.

That’s fairly obvious if you simply look at the geographic and demographic distributions of violence in America, which I have previously explained. Academic research on the subject has come to the same conclusion. (See here and here). Despite being gun control advocates, these researchers understand that there are underlying sociological drivers of violence that transcend “guns” and warrant our attention.

To be sure, most people will readily accept that poverty and despair are associated with violence—that’s unsurprising. However, they may see the problem of poverty as impossibly vexing and intractable. Implementing stricter gun laws might seem more feasible by comparison, even if it doesn’t get to the root of the problem. Part of the appeal of gun control is the simplicity of its narrative.

But that’s a mistake. You may refer back to this breakdown to see why the “get rid of the guns, get rid of the gun violence” narrative is simplistic, not simple.

Moreover, there’s actually a lot that we can do to reduce poverty and create greater opportunity, and many of these measures have—or could plausibly attain—broad-based, bipartisan support. There are sound steps to be taken that are both feasible and meaningful. Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute presents a compelling array of such policy reforms in his book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor.

But regardless of whether you favor Tanner’s approach or some other, the essential point to recognize is that violence is largely a symptom of underlying social conditions. Gun control not only fails to fix but actually aggravates those conditions. Any critic of the “War on Drugs” should be able to see how a “War on Guns” has similar effects on individuals, families, and communities.

When speaking of reducing violence by building prosperity, it’s encouraging to know that we’ve already done it, to a very large degree. That’s an inescapable conclusion of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature. Now it’s up to us to make sure that that progress continues, especially on the margins of society where it’s most needed.

Gun control can’t solve our problems. Especially with the widespread adoption of 3D printing and other means of self-manufacture, gun control will increasingly be relegated to irrelevance. Gun control policies will burden only the upstanding citizens who, in good faith, try to abide by them, and are nonetheless ensnared. If we want to get serious about addressing violence in America, there are many more promising areas to focus on.

COLUMN BY

Mark Houser

Mark Houser is an independent researcher who writes about the right to bear arms and firearm policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Bans Your Gun Ads But Spends Millions On Zuckerberg Security

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

Why the Push Is On To Make Pandemic Life ‘Permanent’

One year after Americans were ordered to close down society for “two weeks to flatten the curve,” Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth warned, “We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic.”

Because new variants of SARS-COV-2 are impervious to existing vaccines, says Kluth, and pharmaceutical companies will never be able to develop new vaccines fast enough to keep up, we will never be able to get “back to normal.”

“Get back to normal” means recovering the relative liberty we had in our already overregulated, pre-Covid lives. This is just the latest in a long series of crises that always seem to lead our wise rulers to the same conclusion: we just cannot afford freedom anymore.

Covid-19 certainly wasn’t the beginning. Americans were told “the world changed” after 9/11. Basic pillars of the American system, like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, were too antiquated to deal with the “new threat of terrorism.” Warrantless surveillance of our phone, e-mail, and financial records and physical searches of our persons without probable cause of a crime became the norm. A few principled civil libertarians dissented, but the public largely complied without protest.

“Keep us safe,” they told the government, no matter the cost in dollars or liberty.

Perhaps seeing how willingly the public rolled over for the political right during the “War on Terror,” authoritarians on the left turbocharged their own war on “climate change.” Previously interested in merely significantly raising taxes and heavily regulating industry, they now wish to ban all sorts of things, including air travelgasoline-powered cars, and even eating meat.

Since Covid-19, however, even the freedom to assemble and see each other’s faces may be permanently banned to help the government “keep us safe.”

Assaulting our liberty isn’t the only characteristic these crisis narratives have in common. They share at least two others: dire predictions that turn out to be false and proposed solutions that turn out to be ineffective.

George W. Bush warned Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” capable of hitting New York City within 45 minutes. He created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to prevent, among other things, a “mushroom cloud” over a major American city.

Twenty years later, we know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the terrorist threat was grossly exaggerated, and the TSA has still never caught a terrorist, not even the two people who tried to set off explosives concealed in their shoes and underwear, respectively.

The only effective deterrent of terrorism so far has been the relatively calmer foreign policy during the four years of the Trump administration, during which regime change operations ceased and major terrorist attacks in the United States virtually disappeared.

Predictions of environmental catastrophe have similarly proven false. Younger people may not remember that in the early 1970s, long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born, environmentalists were predicting worldwide disasters that subsequently failed to materialize. In 1989, the Associated Press reported, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The same official predicted the Earth’s temperature would rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.

Ocasio-Cortez is famous for predicting in 2019, “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” But Al Gore had warned in 2006 that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” So, isn’t it too late anyway?

As with the war on terrorism, the war on climate change asks us to give up our freedom for solutions that don’t work. Assuming climate change proponents have diagnosed the problem correctly and haven’t exaggerated the threat—huge assumptions by themselves— implementing their proposed solution won’t solve the problem, even by their own standards.

Its proponents know this. The U.S. has already led the world in reducing carbon emissions without the draconian provisions of the Green New Deal. If you listen to them carefully, the Green New Deal’s proponents propose the U.S. give up what freedom and prosperity remain to them merely as an example to developing nations, whom they assume will forego the benefits of industrialization already enjoyed by developed countries because of the shining example of an America in chains and brought to its economic knees to “save the earth.”

Fat chance, that.

The latest remake of this horror movie is Covid-19. While undeniably a serious pathogen that has likely killed more people than even the worst flu epidemics of the past several decades (although this is hard to confirm since public health officials changed the methodology for determining a virus-caused death), the government and its minions have still managed to grossly exaggerate this threat.

Gone is any sense of proportion when discussing Covid-19. Yes, it is certainly possible to spread the virus after one has been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity. But how likely is it? Is it any more likely than spreading other pathogens after immunity?

If not, then why are we treating people with immunity differently than we have during more dangerous pandemics in the past? Similarly, it is likely possible for asymptomatic people to spread the virus—a key pillar of the lockdown argument—but again, how likely is it?

The theory Covid-19 could be spread by asymptomatic people was originally based on the case of a single woman who supposedly infected four other people while experiencing no symptoms. Anthony Fauci said this case “lays the question to rest.”

The only problem was no one had asked the woman in question if she had symptoms at the time. When it turned out she did, the study on her was retracted. A subsequent study “did not link any COVID-19 cases to asymptomatic carriers,” and yet another after that concluded transmission of the disease by asymptomatic carriers “is not a major driver of spread.” Yet, policies based on this falsehood, like lockdowns and forcing asymptomatic people to wear masks, remain in place.

Most importantly, none of the government-mandated Covid-19 mitigation policies work. No retrospective review conducted with any semblance of the scientific method has found a relationship between lockdowns, mask mandates, or social distancing and the spread of Covid-19. In fact, the most recent study suggests lockdowns may have increased Covid-19 infections, in addition to all the non-Covid excess deaths they caused.

Over and over, authoritarians overhype crises to scare the living daylights out of the public and propose solutions that have two things in common: they demand more of our freedom and they don’t work. It’s always all pain and no gain. One wonders how many repetitions of this crisis drill it will take before the citizens of the so-called “land of the free” finally think to ask:

Why is freedom always the problem?

This article was republished with permission.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

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

Anti-Free Speech Muslim Group Sues Facebook for Not Removing Sites Opposing Jihad Violence

The tech site Engadget reported Thursday that the far-left legal group Muslim Advocates has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Facebook for allowing “anti-Muslim hate to spread on the platform, leading to real-world harm.” The organization provided a list of what it claimed were 26 “anti-Muslim hate groups,” including organizations that are dedicated simply to opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, including my own news site Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Center for Security Policy, and other groups whose main crime is opposing leftist Islamopandering and the left’s tendency to turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses sanctioned by Islamic law.

Engadget quoted a Facebook spokesperson in full defense mode: “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook and regularly work with experts, nonprofits, and stakeholders to help make sure Facebook is a safe place for everyone, recognizing anti-Muslim rhetoric can take different forms. We have invested in AI technologies to take down hate speech, and we proactively detect 97 percent of what we remove.”

Anyone who has been paying attention can see what is coming. Jihad Watch and the others targeted will disappear from Facebook and ultimately from the Internet altogether, whether as a result of this suit or some other. This suit itself has a very good chance of succeeding, as Muslim Advocates is extremely powerful and influential.

Back in October, Old Joe Biden gave an address filled with cringeworthy pandering to Muslim Advocates, the group that has brought this suit. Nor is Muslim Advocates’ clout something new: back on October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the assistant to the president on national security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, denouncing what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” It criticized “the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.”

Khera complained that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a PowerPoint presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; and that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia,” and “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”

These were supposed to be terrible things because I was bigoted and hateful. But many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate. Nonetheless, Brennan immediately complied. In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan promised that the government would “ensure that federal officials and state, local and tribal partners receive accurate, evidence-based information in these crucial areas.” That led to the erasure of all mention of Islam and jihad from government counterterror materials, and the birth of the Countering Violent Extremism program, which ignores jihad violence and focuses on a largely imaginary “right-wing extremism.”

So Muslim Advocates has connections that go up to the very top, and likely knows where to find a compliant judge who will rule in its favor in this suit.

Also note how the group, with help from the establishment media, has already moved the conversation away from where it should be. Engadget takes for granted that the 26 groups Muslim Advocates is targeting really are “anti-Muslim hate groups.” Engadget never even for a moment considers the possibility that some or all of these groups have been unfairly characterized, and neither does any other media story I have seen on this suit. Neither Engadget nor any other “news site” reached out to me for comment, or, apparently, to anyone else involved with the targeted groups, as none of the stories about this suit contain a single quote from anyone except Muslim Advocates and Facebook.

Yet that is really the point that should be at issue here. Is my work and that of the others targeted in this suit going to be banned as “hate speech” without any opportunity for discussion, explanation, or appeal, but simply on the word of far-left hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a long record of smearing legitimate groups that dissent from the far-left agenda by lumping them in with the KKK and neo-Nazis? The answer to that question appears to be yes. Is the American court system going to take for granted and validate with legal precedent the claim that opposing jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays and others constitutes “anti-Muslim hate”? The answer to that question appears to be yes as well.

So any day now could be the last day for Jihad Watch and other sites that oppose jihad terror. The U.S. will, possibly even before the end of this year, enter a marvelous new world free of “anti-Muslim hate,” that is, free of any criticism of Islam, jihad, or Sharia. Will that bring an end to jihad violence and the human rights abuses sanctioned by Sharia? Unfortunately, no.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Psaki: ‘Encounters of known and suspect terrorists’ at the border are ‘very uncommon’

Biden’s handlers fund Palestinian Authority, which funds magazine that teaches children Hitler was heroic, ‘daring’

UN applauds Biden administration gift of $250,000,000 in ‘aid’ to Palestinians

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

BLM Activist Threatens Cities ‘on Fire’ if Chauvin Not Convicted

In a now-deleted video on social media, prominent Black Lives Matter (BLM) activist Maya Echols threatened that cities will be “on fire” if Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer on trial for the murder of George Floyd, is not convicted.

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just saying,” Echols threatened.

There is no question that an acquittal in the Floyd case will spark nationwide rioting by the “mostly peaceful” domestic terrorists of BLM and the violent anarchists of Antifa, because that’s how the left rolls when trials and elections don’t go their way. They burn cities and loot businesses and assault innocents, and the supportive activists of the news media give them a pass.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration demonizes Trump supporters as the real domestic terrorist threat.


Black Lives MATTER

119 Known Connections

BLM Activist Says Looting Is a Form of Reparations

In August 2020, BLM activists in Chicago held a rally to express their solidarity with the 100+ individuals who had recently been arrested after a night of mass looting and criminal activity. One BLM organizer who spoke at the rally, Ariel Atkins, said: “I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes.” “That is reparations,” she continued. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.” In a similar spirit, In a similar spirit, a social media post for the rally encouraged people to come out and “support the people arrested last night for protesting another police shooting & taking reparations from corporations.”

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here for their profile link.

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

Tennessee lawyer files free speech lawsuit after being fired for ‘anti-Islam’ and pro-Trump tweets

Jerry Morgan gave the details of this case in an exclusive Jihad Watch article HERE. Get more background on this case HERE, where Robert Spencer stated:

What disparaging remarks did Morgan make? Did he say that Muslims were “the most vile of created beings”? No, that’s what the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, calls non-Muslims (98:6). Did he call Muslims “apes and pigs”? No, that’s what the Qur’an calls Jews (2:63-65, 5:59-60, 7:166). Did he say Muslims were “unclean”? No, that’s what the Qur’an says of non-Muslims (9:28).

So what egregious statements did Morgan actually make?

As it turned out, he has been forced to resign for “praising President Donald Trump for ‘stopping Muslims’ and ‘talking big against Muslims,’” and “said Islam was not a peaceful religion and made comments linking the faith with violence and ‘Muslim terrorists.’”

To our dhimmi overlords, however, all that matters is that anything offensive to Islam/Muslims, even if it is true, must be shut down in accordance with Sharia blasphemy laws, which are well on the way to becoming mainstream in American society, despite the First Amendment. Jerry Morgan is one of the few who have had the courage to fight back, and we wish him well.

“Tennessee: State Lawyer Fired for ‘Anti-Islam’ Tweets Files Speech Suit,” 

Bloomberg Law, April 6, 2021:

An attorney alleges the Tennessee Supreme Court’s board of professional responsibility unlawfully fired him for posting Tweets that an opposing party said displayed anti-Muslim bias, arguing his social media posts were constitutionally protected political speech similar to that of former president Donald Trump.

The board of professional responsibility regulates licensed Tennessee attorneys. Jerry Morgan handled appeals to the state supreme court regarding attorney discipline, according to his complaint filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Attorney Brian Manookian, who was undergoing disciplinary proceedings, filed a motion to disqualify Morgan, claiming he was an anti-Muslim bigot. Manookian cited multiple Tweets Morgan had posted that, among other things, praised then-candidate Trump for “talking about the #1 issue of our time—stopping Muslims” and disparaged Muslims and Democrats.

Manookian claimed Morgan had an anti-Islam bias that could prejudice him, because his wife was Muslim and his children were being raised in a Muslim household.

Morgan says his posts were “indisputably political in nature,” concerning matters that were controversial but part of the national debate. “Many were views publicly expressed by Trump” and agreed to by the Tennessee voters who “overwhelmingly” voted for him in 2016, Morgan says. There were no accusations against him of biased conduct in the Manookian case or any other, Morgan claims.

Morgan was fired in December. He sued the board and chief disciplinary counsel Sandra Garrett, alleging he was unconstitutionally punished for Tweets that were made in his private capacity and were about matters of public importance.

Cause of Action: First Amendment.

Relief Requested: Damages, injunctive relief….

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Dept: April Is ‘Arab American Heritage Month,’ Arab Contributions ‘Are as Old As America Itself’

France: In Trappes, Sharia police intervene against drinkers and unveiled women, all Jews have fled except two

India: Muslim leader says Muslims will eradicate Covid-19 during Ramadan ‘by regular and devoted prayers to Allah’

Israel: Biden position on Iran ‘troubling,’ ‘if this is American policy, we are concerned’

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

Justice Thomas Calls For Regulation Of Big Tech

In a thoughtful comment, the Supreme Court justice asks why Twitter can deny the President of the United States his right to free speech.


Back in 2017, Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute sued President Donald Trump for blocking seven of his followers. Apparently they had criticised him, and the thin-skinned owner of the @realDonaldTrump account retaliated by blocking them. This made it impossible for the seven followers to read Trump’s tweets or to respond to them.

“Now I have extremely limited access to the public forum where I once could be heard,” complained a young doctor, Eugene Gu. “I feel cut off and as though I’m being treated like an outsider in my own country.”

Four years later, after working its way through a district court and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the case ended up before the US Supreme Court. And fizzled out.

Earlier this week SCOTUS vacated the decision of the 2nd Circuit in favour of the Knight First Amendment Institute. In other words, it told the lower court to dismiss the case because it is moot, that is, no longer relevant. Trump is no longer POTUS. That took all of two sentences.

What makes the decision interesting, however, is a 12-page comment by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he opens up avenues for reining in Big Tech’s social media platforms.

As everyone knows, Twitter deplatformed President Donald Trump due to “the risk of further incitement of violence” after the Capitol Hill riot. This is just the most notorious example of banning individuals or organisations. The ambitions of Parler, a conservative rival to Twitter, were scuppered when Amazon refused to allow it to use its servers.

As blogger Andy Yen notes: “Once thought of as an untameable jungle of free speech, the internet is now a walled garden, increasingly monitored and controlled by a handful of unregulated monopolies. The gatekeepers to the walled garden, companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, serve as the judge, jury, and executioner for the internet.”

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, Twitter’s impudence in silencing him is all but a declaration of war on free speech. It’s not a personal vendetta of Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, either. Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, SnapChat, PayPal, Venmo, Stripe and GoFundMe piled on, too.

This disturbs Justice Thomas. In his lengthy comment, he acknowledges the legal difficulties: the gatekeepers are private companies offering a service; they should be free to make their own rules and enforce them. On the other hand, they have created something that looks very much like a public utility.

The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least.  Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages.  Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages. Under its terms of service, Twitter can remove any person from the platform—including the President of the United States—“at any time for any or no reason.”  Twitter Inc., User Agreement (effective June 18, 2020).

It’s not just Trump whose free speech rights are at risk. Under the current state of the law in the US, Big Tech can effectively deplatform anyone, anytime. Justice Thomas observes:

Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors.  Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.  We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms. 

What is the way forward? This is the arcane specialty of lawyers. But Justice Thomas highlights two legal doctrines which might be useful.

One is to define social media as “common carriers” which are required to serve all comers. Another is to regard them as “a public accommodation”. On this basis in the past the courts have denied a company’s right to exclude certain kinds of patrons.

Justice Thomas believes that Big Tech could be classified as common carriers. Like telegraphs, they are communications networks carrying information from one place to another. The analogy becomes stronger, he says, if you bear in mind that control of the networks is highly concentrated. One man, Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, controls Facebook.

It could be objected that no one is forced to use Twitter, Facebook or Google. But Justice Thomas observes that:

It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information.  A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail.  But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable.  For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

This circumstances of this particular case did not offer SCOTUS a chance to rule on the social responsibilities of Big Tech. But Justice Thomas’s thoughtful critique traces a path through the legal thickets.

What’s becoming clear is that social media is both a vehicle for free speech and a powerful weapon for shutting it down. We have arrived at a new era in communication and we need new legal concepts to capture the new realities of a connected world.

John Stuart Mill, a shrewd political observer if not always a reliable guide, wrote in his famous treatise On Liberty:

[Society] practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them. (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 1)

The Greeks had an ugly word for rule by mobs which ran roughshod over civil rights and intimidated legitimate authorities: ochlocracy. Today’s woke warriors, with their weaponised deplatforming, cancelling, and Twitterstorming, are reviving the spirit of those savage ochlocrats. To keep them from destroying true democracy, we need a better and more powerful legal framework. Justice Clarence Thomas has done us all a favour.

This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet More by Michael Cook

RELATED VIDEO: The Left’s War on the Family.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The internet is changing the way all of us think and socialise

Parents, check your inbox: the next ‘I am trans’ letter may be addressed to you

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

Everytown For Gun Safety Claims to Speak For America, But We Can Fight Back

In the wake of two mass shootings within a week, leftist nonprofit Everytown For Gun Safety aims to spend at least $1 million in ads to “[pressure] Republican senators to support measures that would strengthen and expand background checks for gun buyers”. Their funds come mainly from Mike Bloomberg, longtime proponent of gun control and one of Everytown’s founders.

Everytown For Gun Control claims to be concerned with defeating gun violence, yet they consistently ignore evidence that shows when more citizens are armed, it’s less likely for gun violence to occur. Instead of recognizing that America needs to be informed, armed citizens who can protect themselves and their communities from mass shootings, Everytown chooses the leftist narrative: that restricting gun ownership and increasing gun-free zones is the way to remain safe. But a whopping 98% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones like schools, where perpetrators know no one can shoot back.

Everytown isn’t the only company jumping on the gun control bandwagon. Major players such as Airbnb (1.33), Dick’s Sporting Goods (2.67), and Levi Strauss and Co. (1.00) have all signed a letter entitled “CEOs For Gun Safety” to pressure the Senate into action. The letter claims that these companies “stand with the American public on gun safety” — except that aside from leftist radicals, common-sense Americans are fighting for their 2nd Amendment rights.

Corporations that support causes like Everytown For Gun Safety and other gun control groups need to be reminded where the American public actually stands. Read the full list of signatories for “CEOs For Gun Safety” and let them know you won’t support them until they stop pandering to the leftist agenda. Then, withdraw your 2ndVote dollars from these companies and spend with their competitors. Stand up for what America’s founders envisioned and against those who would restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Sabbath—A Gift from God

One of the saddest things I saw on Easter Sunday was Amazon delivery trucks on the road. Having to work on Sunday is bad enough, but Easter?

Amazon drivers face many other challenges as well. MSN.com reports (4/4/21) that the E-commerce giant finally acknowledged that some of their drivers are under stress where they can’t even take proper bathroom breaks. But enough about Amazon.

Violating the Sabbath principle is not healthy for society nor for us as individuals. God rested after His creation. He commands us to rest for a day a week.

Sunday as the Lord’s Day is even found in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 specifies: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

In other words, says Dr. Daniel Dreisbach of American University, an author on the influence of the Bible on our founding fathers: “The President is given ten days in which to consider whether to veto a bill or not, Sundays excepted…excluding the Lord’s Day.”

God made the Sabbath—a day off—for our benefit. We violate the principle to our own detriment.

I remember seeing years ago a documentary segment on CNN where they interviewed Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A, and they gave him a hard time for being closed on Sunday. He said that he did this to honor God’s command. But he noted that a side benefit arose from this. The company was able to attract some of the best and brightest personnel in the fast food business to work for them. The company has risen to be the third-highest grossing food chain in America, despite being closed 52 days a year more than its competitors.

Throughout history, various leaders honored the Sabbath principle. For example:

  • Church historian, Philip Schaff, in History of the Christian Church, wrote of British King Alfred’s legal reforms: “His code is introduced with the Ten Commandments and other laws taken from the Bible…it protects the laboring man in his Sunday rest.”
  • Abraham Lincoln issued his “Order for Sabbath Observance,” November 15, 1862: “The President, commander-in-chief of the army and navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service. The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine will, demand that Sunday labor in the army and navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.”
  • Explorer Captain John Cook, notes author Desmond Wilcox, honored the Sabbath: “On Sundays, Cook’s usual captain’s inspection was always followed by a religious service. Cook appeared on deck and the drum beat the retreat. Men fetched stools from below and brought chairs for the officers. The bell was tolled and the church pendant was hoisted at the gaff. Cook conducted the service on the quarterdeck, with a Bible and a prayer book in front of him, placed on a cloth draped over the compass box. A lesson was read, a hymn sung.”

Not all governments have appreciated the gift of the Sabbath. Walter Grab, author of The French Revolution, writes: “At the suggestion of the deputy Romme, the Convention voted on 5 October 1793 to abolish the Christian calendar and introduce a republican calendar . . . . Weeks were replaced with periods of ten days (decades) so that the Christian Sunday would disappear.”  Napoleon later restored the Christian calendar, including the “Christian Sunday.”

My dad once told me about an executive he knew who died relatively young, presumably from overwork. The man was so busy that he would take his Christmas cards with him that he had received the previous winter to the beach the next summer in order to try and keep up with his correspondence.

Dr. Richard Swenson, a medical doctor and author of Margin: Restoring Emotional, Physical, Financial, and Time Reserves to Overloaded Lives, notes, “Life is a journey, but it is not a race. Do yourself a favor and slow down….God never intended for time to oppress us, dictating our every move.”

The early Christians worshiped Jesus on Sunday because that’s when He rose from the dead. Every Sunday is a reminder of Easter Sunday. It’s sad enough to see commerce on Sunday; it is sadder to see it on Easter Sunday itself.

The Sabbath is a gift from the Creator—a day of rest, for our benefit. We cast it aside at our own peril.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.