Why Indiana’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Failed to Stop the FedEx Shooting

The failure of Indiana’s gun law to prevent the FedEx shooting reveals the inherent problems with red flag laws.


Last week 19-year-old Brandon Hole did the unthinkable. He stormed into an Indianapolis FedEx facility with a Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle and killed eight people.

He then took his own life.

CNN recently pointed out that Indiana is one of several US states that have so-called “red flag” laws—also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders—that allow courts to seize firearms from individuals suspected of being a danger to themselves or others. Furthermore, it was revealed that Hole, who was interviewed by the FBI last year, was allowed to purchase a firearm months after being served with an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“[Hole’s] mother told law enforcement in March 2020 that her son told her he would attempt ‘suicide by cop,’” CNN reported. “At the time, officials took a shotgun found at his home into custody, Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said Monday. And yet, later that year, Hole was able to legally purchase assault rifles.”

The revelation cast a shadow over Indiana’s red flag law, a policy that lawmakers have argued is essential to stopping mass shootings.

The failure of Indiana’s gun law to prevent the FedEx shooting “shows the limits” of the state’s red flag, Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears told CNN.

In the Hoosier State, people who have their firearms seized are not automatically designated as violent or mentally unstable. Instead, the state has two weeks to file a petition requesting the court to designate the offender mentally unsound or violent. In Hole’s case, the firearm had been secured and the family made no effort to reclaim the weapon, so prosecutors determined they had “achieved” the law’s objective.

The seizure of the weapon did not stop the crime, however. And the failure highlights two reasons I’ve argued Americans should be wary of red flag laws. For starters, there is little evidence to support the claim that red flag laws reduce gun violence.

“The evidence,” The New York Times reported in 2019, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

There’s a reason for this. As Indiana’s law shows, red flags are complicated. In many cases, the laws appear to be more about providing political window dressing than reducing gun crime.

For example, California’s red flag went effectively unused for years after its passage in 2016, The Washington Post reported. Washington, D.C.’s law went entirely unused, the Post said. Meanwhile, states such as Maryland and Florida have seized hundreds of firearms—yet it’s unclear if these confiscations actually stopped a shooting.

This leads to my second point. Red flag laws are essentially a form of “pre-crime,” a theme explored in Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi novella The Minority Report (which Steven Spielberg adapted into a pretty great movie in 2002).

In the book, police exploit precognitive powers to stop crimes before they happen. In the real world, of course, authorities do not have the power of precogs to help them fight crime, yet that has not stopped them from trying—even though Dick’s story explores the serious ethical problems of using the law against people who have not committed any crime (but might!).

Some argue that Indiana’s red flag failure isn’t evidence that red flag laws don’t work, it’s simply evidence that this particular law didn’t have enough teeth.

“In Indiana, they have the red flag law … but they don’t have the mechanism to make it difficult to get out and get more guns,” Michael Lawlor, a professor at the University of New Haven, told CNN.

Lawlor, who in 1999 helped write Connecticut’s red flag law—the first in the United States—as a member of the state legislature, said it should have been a “no-brainer” in Connecticut to prevent a person like Hole from purchasing a firearm.

In other words, we simply need a more effective bureaucracy. This is, of course, a perennial rejoinder from those who believe the state would run smoothly if only the proper managers were executing the plan. But as the economist Ludwig von Mises has observed, this is a fantasy.

“It is a widespread illusion that the effi­ciency of government bureaus could be improved by management engineers and their methods of scientific management,” Mises noted in Bureaucracy. “What they call deficiencies and faults of the management of administrative agencies are necessary properties.”

In other words, per Mises, these types of inefficiencies and dysfunction are inherent in bureaucracies, which lack the incentive structure that makes markets so efficient.

“A bureau is not a profit-seeking enterprise; it cannot make use of any economic calculation, Mises wrote. “It is out of the question to improve its management by reshaping it ac­cording to the pattern of private business.”

Mises’s point is actually driven home by CNN. The network points out there have been numerous instances of red flag laws failing in precisely the manner seen in Indiana, including in November 2018, when a gunman killed 12 people and injured more than a dozen more at a bar in California not long after he was visited by law enforcement authorities for erratic behavior. Authorities could have easily executed a red flag law, but they did not.

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s say the system does work and a would-be shooter is denied a firearm purchase. What is to prevent that person from simply obtaining a firearm on the black market?

The reality is that black markets do exist. And an abundance of research shows that the vast majority of the people committing gun crimes are not lawful gun owners. One University of Pittsburgh study, for example, found that lawful gun owners accounted for just 18 percent of gun violence.

“The top-line finding of the study — that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners — reinforces a common refrain among gun rights advocacy groups,” The Washington Post said of the study. “They argue that since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.”

It’s difficult to fathom that a person determined enough to kill strangers in cold blood will be deterred after being denied a firearm purchase at the local gun store.

The bottom line is that Brandon Hole was a deeply disturbed person whose bizarre interests and behavior reportedly included an obsession with “Bronies,’ a subculture of the internet for male fans of My Little Pony.

His life ended tragically and claimed the lives of others in an even more tragic fashion. But to think that his crime could have been prevented if only the bureaucratic system had worked more efficiently defies reason and empirical evidence.

Moreover, if we convince ourselves that bureaucracy can truly prevent crimes before they happen if we only push a little harder against civil liberties, we don’t just delude ourselves.

We may end up creating a world that’s even more terrifying than Philip Dick’s dystopian vision.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

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.

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

Rich Hollywood Elite Turns Oscars Into Far-Left Hate Speech Targeting Cops

This is why police officers are retiring in droves. The fact that our cities will become far less safe means nothing to these untalented clowns. Why would it? Many of them have very elaborate security details, and don’t have to worry about their safety. Hopefully few Americans will watch this crap.

Hollywood is dead. Finished. They destroyed America’s film industry – once the unparalleled world leader in entertainment.

They’ve been shoveling their communist crap down our throats and Americans have had it.

Oscars 2021 presenter Regina King announces awards as ‘maskless’ movie, references Derek Chauvin conviction

The 93rd Academy Awards are expected to be the lowest-rated yet despite several opportunities to make history

By Fox News, April 25, 2021

Sunday night’s Oscars kicked off with its first presenter of the night, actress Regina King, declaring the film industry’s biggest night is maintaining its producers’ promise: to provide an intimate ceremony with “maskless” guests amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Oh, live TV here we go, welcome to the 93rd Oscars. Oh, Jesus, I made it,” King said.

Noting that it’s “been quite a year” for presenters, nomineesperformers, and the rest of the world as we are “still smack dab in the middle of it,” the 93rd Academy Awards is a night “to celebrate,” she said.

“And yes, we’re doing it maskless,” King declared. “Well, think of this as a movie set, an Oscars movie with a cast of over 200 nominees. People have been vaxxed, tested, retested, social distanced and we are following all of the rigorous protocols that got us back to work safely. So, just like as a movie set masks off and when we’re not rolling, masks on. Ok, that’s how we do it.”

The “One Night in Miami” director added that it would have been quite a different celebratory night for her had Derek Chauvin not been convicted in the May 2020 murder of George Floyd.

“I have to be honest if things had gone differently this week in Minneapolis, I would have traded in my heels for marching boots,” she said.

The first two awards of the night went to Emerald Fennell who won the award for best original screenplay for the film “Promising Young Woman,” starring Carey Mulligan, and the best adapted screenplay then went to Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton for “The Father.”

In accepting his award for best director, Thomas Vinterberg, paid tribute to his daughter, Ida, who he said died in a car accident days into beginning filming for “Another Round.”

“She loved this. She was supposed to be in this. You’ll be able to see her clapping and cheering with us. We ended up making this movie for her, as her monument. So, Ida, this is a miracle that just happened and you’re a part of this miracle. Maybe you’ve been pulling some strings somewhere, I don’t know. But this one is for you,” Vinterberg said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fact Check: Oscar Winner Claims Police Killings Happen ‘Disproportionately’ to Black People

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.

NEW YORK CITY: Muslim migrant gets life in prison for jihad bombing on subway in 2017

“Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh…”

Why was he here at all? Why did vetting procedures, if any, fail? What is being done to make sure this doesn’t happen again? Why, nothing, of course. Just the opposite.

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for ISIS-inspired Bombing in New York City Subway Station in 2017

Department of Justice, April 22, 2021:

WASHINGTON – A New York man was sentenced today to life in prison for detonating a bomb in a New York City subway station. He admitted that he conducted the terrorist attack on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh, was convicted by a federal jury of offenses related to the detonation and attempted detonation of a bomb in a subway station near the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City on Dec. 11, 2017. According to court documents, on Dec. 11, 2017, at approximately 7:20 a.m., Ullah detonated a pipe bomb strapped to his chest in a subway station near the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan. Shortly after the blast, first responders located Ullah lying on the ground in the station where he had detonated the improvised explosive device, and he was taken into custody. Surveillance footage captured Ullah walking through the station immediately prior to the explosion and then detonating the bomb.

“Ullah constructed a pipe bomb and detonated it in a mass transit hub in the heart of New York City to harm and terrorize as many people as possible – and he admitted that he did it on behalf of ISIS,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers for the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This case reminds us that the threat of ISIS-inspired terrorism remains real. This sentence holds Ullah accountable, as he will spend the rest of his life in federal prison for his crimes. I want to thank all of the agents, analysts, and prosecutors whose outstanding work made this result possible.”

“Akayed Ullah, previously convicted in a New York federal court of carrying out a lone-wolf bombing attack on behalf of ISIS at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a bustling transit artery in New York City, admittedly intended to murder as many innocent Americans as possible,” said U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss for the Southern District of New York. “Ullah’s motive was clear and unambiguous: a deeply held ideological hatred for America. Ironically, Ullah’s actions resulted only in reaffirming the greatness of America by displaying the fairness and impartiality for which our justice system stands. Ullah received a speedy, fair, public trial, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Akayed Ullah’s message of hatred clearly backfired; his just sentence of life in prison only exemplifies that cowardly acts of terrorism will be met with law enforcement’s unwavering resolve to protect our core values of freedom and democracy.”

“The defendant sought to attack innocent Americans who were going about their daily lives,” said Acting Assistant Director Patrick Reddan for Counterterrorism at the FBI. “He will now spend the rest of his life in prison, where he will not be in a position to attempt another attack. While the terrorism threat continues to evolve in this country, groups like ISIS remain committed to attacking America, and the FBI will continue to work with our JTTF partners across the country in our commitment to track down and disrupt terrorists who seek to harm our homeland.”

According to court documents and the evidence presented at trial, Ullah began radicalizing in approximately 2014. Ullah disagreed with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and began seeking out online materials promoting radical Islamic terrorist ideology. In particular, Ullah was inspired by ISIS propaganda, including a video in which ISIS instructed supporters to carry out attacks in their homelands if they were unable to travel overseas to join ISIS. Ullah began researching how to build a bomb about a year prior to his attack. He built his pipe bomb in the weeks leading up to the attack at his Brooklyn apartment.

Following the attack on Dec. 11, 2017, law enforcement located remnants of the pipe bomb on Ullah’s person and strewn across the attack site in the subway station. Law enforcement found, among other things: (i) a nine-volt battery inside Ullah’s pants pocket, which he used as the power source for triggering the bomb; (ii) wires connected to the battery and running underneath Ullah’s jacket; (iii) plastic zip ties underneath Ullah’s jacket, which he used to strap the bomb to his body; (iv) several fragments of a metal pipe, which Ullah had filled with an explosive substance that he made using sugar and match heads; (v) fragments of Christmas tree lightbulbs attached to wires, which Ullah used to ignite the explosion; and (vi) numerous metal screws. Ullah filled his pipe bomb with dozens of metal screws to function as shrapnel, for the purpose of causing maximum damage.

On the morning of the attack, shortly before detonating his bomb, Ullah posted a statement on Facebook referring to the then-President of the United States, stating: “Trump you failed to protect your nation.” Ullah also posted an ISIS slogan so that ISIS would know that he had carried out the attack on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization.

After Ullah was taken into custody following the attack, he waived his Miranda rights and spoke to law enforcement. Ullah was inspired by ISIS to carry out the Dec. 11 attack, and stated, among other things, “I did it for the Islamic State.” He also said that he chose a busy weekday morning for the attack in order to “terrorize as many people as possible.” One commuter who was inside the station when Ullah detonated the pipe bomb suffered a shrapnel wound to his leg, and two other victims partly lost their hearing as a result of the blast. Ullah’s attack caused the Port Authority subway station and bus terminal to shut down temporarily, disrupting the lives of commuters across the New York City area.

After the attack, law enforcement searched Ullah’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant. Agents recovered, among other things, Ullah’s passport, which contained the handwritten statement, “O AMERICA, DIE IN YOUR RAGE.” Less than two weeks before carrying out the attack, Ullah had watched and drawn inspiration from a particular ISIS propaganda video that proclaimed, “die in your rage, America,” with an image of the U.S. Capitol in the background.

Later in December 2017, while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the charges in this case, Ullah began chanting “more is coming” at a correctional officer, and then told the officer: “You started this war, we will finish it. More is coming, you’ll see.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer had Qur’an and prayer rug in his scooter

Turkey’s foreign ministry summons US Ambassador to protest recognition of Armenian Genocide

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer watched videos glorifying jihad before attack

France: Muslim migrant who stabbed police officer to death was screaming ‘Allahu akbar’

Finland: Muslim migrant gets four years in prison for bringing his 13-year-old wife to the country

Bangladesh: Muslim mob tears down newspaper office, attacks Hindu homes

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

Biden Administration Prioritizes “Wokeism,” Critical Race Theory In Schools

There is no constitutional role for the federal government in education.


The Biden administration is taking new steps to promote Critical Race Theory and The New York Times’s controversial 1619 Project in US education programs. In a proposed federal rule issued on Monday, the US Department of Education indicated that it will be using taxpayer funds to award millions of dollars in American history and civics education grants that prioritize the belief that America is systemically racist.

The grant program seeks “projects that incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives into teaching and learning,” and refers to President Biden’s Inauguration Day executive order that explains how our country is plagued by “systemic racism” and “deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” to address this issue.

The new federal proposed rule refers to the 1619 Project and related curriculum resources as a “landmark” model for US history and civics education, despite its agenda-driven hostility against capitalism, its flawed historical analysis that many scholars have deemed false, and the Times’s own correction of the project.

The grant prioritization also pushes for greater emphasis on “anti-racism” training in schools, and quotes the work of Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist.

Successful applicants will demonstrate how their projects emphasize “systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history,” and promote “identity-safe learning environments.”

When former President Trump issued his call for a “1776 Commission” last September to advocate for widespread “patriotic education” in schools across the country, I warned that this was a bad idea. There is no constitutional role for the federal government in education. If one president decides to use the power of the federal government to push one particular educational paradigm, then another president could use the same power to push a different one. In my FEE article, I wrote:

“Emboldening the federal government to execute education policy may seem appealing when your preferred politician or party is in power, but that power remains when leadership inevitably sways to another politician or party. If you wouldn’t support a Biden ‘1619 Commission,’ then you shouldn’t support Trump’s ‘1776 Commission.’ If you wouldn’t support mandatory ‘critical race theory’ taught in your local schools, then you shouldn’t support mandatory ‘patriotic education’ either.”

But, here we are.

Decentralizing power away from the federal government and towards the state and local levels allows for greater taxpayer influence over public policy. It also makes it easier for citizens to choose where to live based on policy. For instance, if parents in Illinois don’t like the new teaching standards that the legislature recently passed to incorporate Critical Race Theory into state teacher training programs, they can always move to another state. If the federal government passes such a law, parents have far fewer options.

The Founders’ belief in federalism, or avoiding the concentration of power at the federal level, is crucially important. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, no. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” States can make education policy. The federal government cannot.

While the federal government should not be involved in education policy, there is much to debate at the state and local levels in terms of curriculum and learning standards. Critical Race Theory is penetrating classrooms across the country, and parents and teachers are increasingly speaking out against this leftist ideology of “wokeism,” even if it costs them their job.

We should absolutely celebrate diversity, show tolerance for difference, and acknowledge the deeply racist parts of American history, including government-sponsored racism through Jim Crow laws and redlining. We should also recognize that racism still exists today.

But Critical Race Theory seeks to view all social and cultural issues through the lens of race and racial identity, and to cast all human relations in terms of power structures related to that identity. It is a collectivist notion that puts the group above the individual and pigeonholes people as either oppressor or oppressed.

Indeed, the history of Critical Race Theory is rooted in Marxist thought and began to gain traction in academic circles in the early to mid-20th century through the “Frankfurt School” before spilling over into the broader culture near the turn of the millennium.

Last fall, FEE’s Dan Sanchez, Tyler Brandt, and Brad Polumbo wrote an excellent, in-depth explainer article on Critical Race Theory (CRT), discussing how it threatened the important progress made by the Civil Rights Movement. “The pre-CRT Civil Rights Movement had emphasized equal rights and treating people as individuals, as opposed to as members of a racial collective,” they wrote. “In contrast, CRT dwells on inequalities of outcome, which it generally attributes to racial power structures.”

They argued that the Civil Rights Movement was in line with the broader classical liberal movement, whose harmony-oriented vision stands in stark contrast against the Marxian conflict-oriented view of Critical Race Theory.

“The classical liberal ‘harmony doctrine,’” they explained, “was deeply influential in the movements to abolish all forms of inequality under the law: from feudal serfdom, to race-based slavery, to Jim Crow. But, with the rise of Critical Race Theory, the cause of racial justice became more influenced by the fixations on conflict, discord, and domination that CRT inherited from Marxism. Social life was predominantly cast as a zero-sum struggle between collectives: capital vs. labor for Marxism, whites vs. people of color for CRT.”

The antidote to this Marxist framework is to prioritize individualism over collectivism, in both schools and society more broadly. It’s to focus on the content of one’s character rather than the color of one’s skin, as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. urged.

Critical Race Theory does the opposite. “‘Antiracist’ training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising,” math teacher Paul Rossi wrote last week in his letter objecting to the adoption of Critical Race Theory at his elite private school in Manhattan. “It requires teachers like myself to treat students differently on the basis of race.”

As more parents and teachers speak out against Critical Race Theory and “wokeism” in their schools, education policy and pedagogy will hopefully reject group antagonisms and embrace individual liberty and social harmony.

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

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

House passes bill stopping any future president from imposing ‘travel ban on the basis of religion’

The list of countries of concern that the Trump administration outlined in an executive order was based on the document devised by the former Obama administration. Despite the fact that it was Obama who set the foundation, it is Trump who is persistently criticized as being discriminatory against Muslims. Obama restricted visa waivers for seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The restriction was based on security issues. But we didn’t hear any Leftist outcry about Obama being “racist” against Muslims or discriminatory.

This new bill is nothing but virtue-signaling, and wouldn’t even have stopped Trump’s bans, for they were not based on religion, but on security.

It just happens to be the case that among the world’s most egregious violators of human rights and hotbeds of terrorism are many Muslim countries. Does this new bill now mean that such countries when they are Muslim-majority are no longer dangerous? Does it mean that America should permit open immigration from any country, no matter how violent, as to not offend Muslims and the woke crowd?

As absurd as all this is, it is the premise of the irrational policies that are being instituted by the Biden administration. The administration is willing to put national security at risk as to not offend Islam. America continues a rapid descent downwards; Sharia tenets are being institutionalized, while the strictures and policies of Communism are being increasingly normalized.

US House passes bill to prevent another ‘Muslim ban’

by William Roberts, Al Jazeera, April 21, 2021:

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would limit the ability of any United States president to impose a travel ban on the basis of religion, a move that was welcomed by civil rights advocates as “a major step forward”.

The legislation, known informally as the NO BAN Act, comes in response to former President Donald Trump’s controversial “Muslim ban” that barred travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries.

The bill, which must also pass in the US Senate to become law, was approved by a 218-208 vote in the House on Wednesday.

“The Muslim ban tore families apart, put lives on hold for years and labelled Muslims, Africans and other targeted people as threatening outsiders,” said Madihha Ahussain, counsel to Muslim Advocates, a US civil rights group.

“We must ensure that no president can enact discriminatory bans like this ever again and with the passage of the NO BAN Act in the House, we are taking a major step forward to ensuring that they won’t,” Ahussain said in a statement as the bill was passed…

COLUMN BY

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Biden’s Handlers to Bring In More ‘Refugees’

CENTCOM top dog: it will be difficult to battle terrorism in Afghanistan without U.S. troops in the country

Bangladesh: Muslim leader arrested for instigating violence, attempted murder, assault and vandalism

Iran: Advanced centrifuges discovered at nuke facility, again proving Islamic Republic violated 2015 deal

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

Election Integrity Recommendations Report — Official Release

Today we are proud to announce the official public release of our Election Integrity: Recommendations Report.

Although our team of independent experts has written eight other major reports pertaining to US elections, this is the most important one, by far. (Please pass on the link to this one-page document to anyone interested in the election integrity issue.)

We’ve been working on this for about two months, and set for ourselves four (4) standards that this report should meet:

Competent, Comprehensive, Collaborative and Creative.

Regarding collaborative, there is no shortage of partisan ideas regarding the US election process (e.g. HR.1/S.1). We are attempting to reasonably bridge the currently cavernous divide. To say the least, that is a Herculean challenge!

For those who favor brevity, we have also posted a one-page document listing our thirty recommendations.

Let me know any questions, or improvements to this report.

Please pass this information onto your social media sites, friends & family, and anyone else who values America. If we don’t have election integrity, every other aspect of our life will be adversely affected.

TY for your support and assistance on this extraordinarily important national matter!

Note 1: How does our Recommendations Report differ from the dozens of reports done on the election issue to date?

a) It is written by independent scientists, outside the election analysis field,
b) It is a meta-analysis of dozens of election related reports, extracting the best ideas from each,
c) It is an exceptionally comprehensive report, with thirty (30) election integrity recommendations,
d) Among these thirty recommendations are ideas never suggested before,
e) It aims to be reasonably non-partisan, with concessions made to both camps, and
f) It takes advantage of the latest election developments that happened through April 2021.

Note 2: What is urgently needed, is for election integrity allies to come together to aggressively support a package of improvements such as we are formally proposing today — then to agree on effective messaging, plus a quality plan-of-action.
Note 3: Our Recommendations Report is a living document, and will be updated as improvements are warranted.

‘Squad’ members spent up to $32,000 on private security while championing defunding the police

How long will Americans tolerate this corruption and depravity?

‘Squad’ members spent up to $32,000 on private security while championing defunding the police

By Washington Examiner, April 20, 2021

Members of the “Squad” spent thousands on personal security despite calling for the police to be defunded in the last year.

Federal Election Commission data show that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and Rep. Cori Bush each spent thousands of dollars for services listed as “security” or “security services” in the last few months.

Ocasio-Cortez spent $3,000 per month in January, February, and March on security from one firm out of New York City.

Omar, meanwhile, spent a total of $3,103.61 on security during those same months, and Pressley spent $4,186.75 on “Security Services.”

Bush, who is a freshman congresswoman, spent the most on security, to the tune of more than $32,000, according to an April quarterly 2021 financial report.

All four women joined the chorus of Democrats and Black Lives Matter activists who demanded that law enforcement be defunded after George Floyd’s death last May.

Ocasio-Cortez, for example, rebuked New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio last June for proposing a $1 billion cut to the New York Police Department, saying it wasn’t nearly enough.

“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”

That same month, Omar tweeted that the “‘defund the police’ movement, is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, claimed to have been murdered by Trump supporters, actually died of a stroke

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.

PODCAST: Packing The Court

During the 2020 campaign, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden proposed developing a bipartisan dialog regarding the number of justices to sit on the Supreme Court. This occurred following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice, thereby putting conservatives firmly in control of the Court. Biden’s proposal was all part of his “unity” themed campaign he promised to America which, of course, was a bald faced lie. Instead of such a dialog, the Democrat controlled Congress has jumped the gun and is now proposing four more seats being added to the court which would enable the Democrats to take political control of the Court.

This legislation is being introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY17), and Hank Johnson (D-GA4), all Democrats. Republicans, of course, were never consulted. So much for “unity.” If enacted, this would allow the court to grow from nine seats to thirteen. In reality, this is a thinly veiled attempt to politicize the supreme court in favor of leftist doctrine and a genuine threat to our Republic.

This is certainly not the first time politicians have tried to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. Let’s begin with this fact; the Court’s size had been set at nine since the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869, over 150 years ago.

As a point of history, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) also tried to change the makeup of the court during his administration. Prior to this, his government work programs during the Great Depression were regularly rejected by the Court, thereby infuriating the President. To overcome this problem, FDR introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. This would have allowed him to appoint a justice for every current justice over the age of 70 which, at the time, was six, thereby expanding the court to fifteen and presumably giving the president the votes needed to pass his legislation.

Fortunately, the Bill was defeated as it was considered by Congress as nothing more than an attempt by FDR to pack the court. Both Republicans and Democrats voted against it, including FDR’s Vice President at the time, John Nance Garner.

Just as in 1937, the 2021 Bill is based on political bias and is rightfully considered a court packing scheme by the Democrats. It will be interesting to see how Democrats vote on this legislation this go around. I suspect they will vote along party lines.

My question is simple; if the Democrats insist on doing this, why stop at a thirteen seat Court? Why not 99? Suppose the legislation is passed and thirteen becomes the magic number. What would the Democrats do if the Court is taken over by conservative justices? Increase the number of seats again? Frankly, any number other than nine would be considered a farce.

In other words, let’s uphold the Judiciary Act of 1869 and Keep It Simple Stupid.

Keep theFaith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

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

Interior Enforcement And The Border Crisis

The one issue intentionally ignored by our corrupt political elites.


There is no shortage of news coverage about the immigration crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border, with much of the coverage focusing on the horrific conditions in which unaccompanied minors are being kept.

What is almost never discussed, however, is how the lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws within the United States fails to deter and actually serves to encourage massive levels of illegal immigration. What is also ignored is how this lack of interior enforcement undermines national security, public safety, public health, and the jobs and wages of Americans.

Consider that if you ask most folks how many “border states” the U.S. has, you are likely to be told that there are four: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

In reality the United States has 50 border states. Any state that lies along the northern and the southern border or along America’s 95,000 miles of coastline is also a border state, as are those states that have international airports. As I have written about before, the breakdown of the Southwest border is only the tip of the iceberg.

Meanwhile, radical Democrats are now calling for the dismantling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Biden administration has taken the unprecedented measure of issuing an executive order prohibiting ICE agents from making warrantless arrests of illegal aliens. Given this and the Biden administration opposing other such security measures, it can truly be said that “Biden Cripples Immigration Law Enforcement” because his executive orders handcuff agents and set law violators free.

On February 18, 2021 the Washington Post reported that a “Biden memo for ICE officers points to fewer deportations and strict oversight.” According to the Post, ICE agents “will need preapproval from a senior manager before trying to deport anyone who is not a recent border crosser, a national security threat or a criminal offender with an aggravated-felony conviction.” The Biden administration expects this policy “to result in a steep drop in immigration arrests and deportations.”

In other words, with a mere stroke of his pen, Biden has virtually eliminated the statutory authority that ICE agents have to make warrantless arrests of suspected illegal aliens. This sends a clear message to the agents, that anything they do can (and likely will) be used against them.

Furthermore so-called “sanctuary” policies implemented by numerous mayors and even some governors further undermine any remaining vestiges of interior enforcement and hence undermine national security and public safety. Sanctuary states now provide driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. New York state even went so far as to block ICE and Border Patrol access to its DMV database, Cuomo’s gift to ISIS, the drug cartels, and human traffickers.

Under Biden’s policies, the Border Patrol is once again engaged in the “Catch and Release” of aliens they arrest. Upon release, these aliens head to towns and cities across the United States. Some have been told to appear for hearings years from now and some have not even been given court dates. Aliens who fail to appear for immigration hearings will have nothing to fear from immigration authorities because of the Biden executive orders and policies.

For decades the interior enforcement mission of immigration law enforcement under both Democrat and Republican administrations has been all but ignored. This has, in my judgement, been the biggest failure of the immigration system and is really a failure by design. It has suffered from an abject lack of resources that has done untold damage and, in my judgement and even in the judgement of the 9/11 Commission, contributed to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and other terror attacks mounted in the United States by international terrorists.

This lack of interior enforcement also hobbles efforts to combat human trafficking, transnational gangs, and drug trafficking organizations. ICE agents are supposed to investigate and penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. ICE agents are assigned to various multi-agency task forces such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, where I was assigned for the final ten years of my career with the former United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In November 2001, just weeks after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, I testified before the House Immigration Reform Caucus, then chaired by Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. On December 10, 2001, he entered my prepared testimony for that hearing into the Congressional Record. The focus of that hearing, and consequently my testimony, was to explore the failures of the immigration system that contributed to the ability of the terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves in our country, and prepare to carry out the most horrific terror attack in our nation’s history.

Among the issues that I raised was my concept of the “Immigration Enforcement Tripod.”  Under this concept, the Border Patrol enforces our immigration laws between ports of entry, interdicting illegal immigration and the smuggling of contraband into the United States; the Immigration inspectors (now known as Customs and Border Protection inspectors) enforce our immigration laws at ports of entry by applying the immigration laws during the inspections process; and, finally, comprising the third leg of the enforcement tripod are the Immigration special agents (Now Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents) who enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, backing up both the Border Patrol and the CBP Inspectors by arresting aliens who evade the Border Patrol and the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by entering the United States without inspection. ICE agents are also supposed to arrest aliens who violate their terms of lawful admission into the United States.

ICE agents also conduct investigations into immigration fraud where aliens may enter into fraud marriages with U.S. citizens or lawful immigrant aliens in order to acquire lawful immigrant status or seek visas by concealing or altering material facts in their applications. The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified immigration fraud and visa fraud as the key methods of entry and embedding employed by not only the 9/11 hijacker terrorists, but other terrorists as well.

Immigration fraud enables aliens to circumvent measures that are designed to combat illegal immigration. The border wall that has received so much attention can be easily defeated by an item that you can place in their jacket pocket or hold in your hand: a green card.

Similarly, while so many have, over the years, asked me if mandatory E-Verify would end illegal immigration once and for all by forcing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens, the answer is that through immigration fraud, an alien who acquires a green card or other appropriate visa can legally work in the United States, enabling them to fly through the E-Verify program.

The only way to combat immigration fraud is to have an adequate number of ICE agents who have the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Today ICE has only about 6,000 agents for the entire country and most of them are engaged in non-immigration related investigations.

The official commission report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel,” included several observations that are important to consider. Page 61 warned that “human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.” Page 98 observes that immigration fraud is a primary method for terrorists to remain in the U.S. after securing entry. For example, “Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Moreover, the report warns, simple immigration benefit fraud can and has been used by terrorists to prolong their residency in the U.S. “In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated.”

Consider how so many of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and expectations of privacy have been sliced away in the name of “national security” in the post-9/11 world while a succession of administrations have ignored the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Harry Truman understood accountability when he placed that placard on the desk in the Oval Office that read, “The Buck Stops Here!” Today it would appear that the Biden administration is obstructing the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act undermining national security, public safety, public health, and in direct opposition to those critical findings and recommendations of the commission that was convened to protect us from future terrorist attacks. It needs to be held accountable.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Why America’s Founders Didn’t Want a Democracy

In his book “Liberty in Peril,” Randall Holcombe challenges the presumption that liberty and democracy are complementary.


When I took history and government in school, many critical issues were misrepresented, given short shrift, or even ignored entirely. And those lacunae undermined my ability to adequately understand many things. Randall Holcombe’s new book, Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History, fills in some very substantial gaps, particularly with regard to American constitutionalism and how it has morphed from protecting liberty to advancing democracy at the expense of liberty. It does so with a host of novel and important insights rather than the disinterest generated by the books I suffered through in school.

The Role of Government

Holcombe gets right to the main point:

The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically allowed by the Constitution. This book describes how the fundamental principle underlying American government has been transformed from protecting individual liberty to carrying out the will of the people, as revealed by a democratic decision-making process. (p. xxii)

Holcombe begins by laying out the case that “the Founders had no intention of creating a democracy, in the sense of a government that would be guided by popular opinion,” (p. 5) in sharp contrast to current “understanding.” And what makes the transformation from a central focus on liberty to a central focus on democracy that routinely invades liberty particularly significant is that

the powers embodied in America’s twenty-first-century democratic government are those that eighteenth-century Americans revolted against to escape. (p. 7)

Since I do not have the space to dissect all of the issues in Liberty in Peril, I would like to highlight a few particularly noteworthy things.

Holcombe starts with John Locke, which is a common place to start for those interested in advancing liberty. But he also calls attention to Cato’s Letters, which was one of the most influential—but now almost completely ignored—influences leading to the birth of the American Revolution. I have long been struck by how many of the insights our founders are credited with that actually trace back there (see the first major chapter of my book Lines of Liberty), and I echo Holcombe’s invitation for more people to discover it.

Liberty in Peril challenges the typical current presumption that liberty and democracy are complementary.

The principle of liberty suggests that first and foremost, the government’s role is to protect the rights of individuals. The principle of democracy suggests that collective decisions are made according to the will of the majority…The greater the allowable scope of democracy in government, the greater the threat to liberty…In particular, the ascendency of the concept of democracy threatens the survival of the free market economy, which is an extension of the Founders’ views on liberty. (pp. 14-15)

This is reflected in the changing nature of elections.

At one time, elections might have been viewed as a method of selecting competent people to undertake a job with constitutionally-specified limits. With the extension of democracy, elections became referendums on public policy. (p. 20)

The book also challenges commonly held presumptions that our Founders wanted democracy. But while “the Founders wanted those in charge of government’s operations to be selected by a democratic process,” they “also wanted to insulate those who ran the government from direct influence by its citizens” because “[b]y insulating political decision-makers from directs accountability to citizens, the government would be in a better position to adhere to its constitutionally-mandated limits.” (p. 15)

“Thus, the Constitution created a limited government designed to protect liberty, not to foster democracy.” (p. 16) But the United States “consistently has moved toward more democracy, and the unintended side effect has been a reduction in liberty.” (p. 25)

Holcombe lays out issues of consensus versus democracy, with consensus illustrated by market systems in which all those whose property rights are involved agree to transactions, (p. 29) but in government, “a group is able to undertake more extensive collective action if it requires less consensus to act.” (p. 30) And the slippery slope is that

[t]he more citizens want to further national goals through government action, the less consensus they will demand in the collective decision-making process. (p. 33)

Another notable aspect of Liberty in Peril is how far beyond the typical discussion of constitutional issues it goes, substantially expanding readers’ understanding in intriguing ways. For instance, how many Americans know of the Iroquois Constitution, which focused on unanimity? How many are aware of the Albany Plan of Union, drawn up in 1754, or how it was influenced by the Iroquois Constitution? How many know that a “clear chain of constitutional evolution proceeds from the Albany Plan of Union to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States”? (p. 43)

How many have noticed that “when compared with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution clearly less constraining than the document it supplanted…the Constitution did not limit the powers of government; it expanded them”? (p. 48) Yet,

[w]hile the authors of the Constitution did deliberately expand the powers of the federal government, they just as deliberately tried to prevent the creation of a democratic government. (p. 52)

How many are aware of what the Confederate Constitution tells us about the US Constitution and the drift from its principles since its adoption, especially because “the problems that the authors of the Confederate Constitution actually did address were overwhelmingly associated with the use of legislative powers to impose costs on the general public to provide benefits to narrow constituencies”? (p. 107)

The Constitution often is portrayed as a document that limits the power of the federal government and guarantees the liberty of its citizens…When compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution places less constraint on the federal government and allows those who run the government more discretion and autonomy and less accountability. The adoption of the Constitution enhanced the powers of government and laid the foundation for two centuries of government growth. (pp. 66-67)

Holcombe’s section on “The Elitist Constitution” is fascinating. It lays out the case for why “[t]he Constitution devised democratic processes for collective decision-making, but the Founders had no intention of designing a government that would respond to the will of the majority,” (p. 70) as illustrated by the fact that citizens “had almost no direct input into the federal government as the Constitution was originally written and ratified.” (p. 70)

The section on the Electoral College is even more striking, as it stands in sharp variance from the presumptions behind almost the entire current debate over the National Popular Vote compact:

[A]t the time the Constitution was written the Founders anticipated that in most cases no candidate would receive votes from a majority of the electors. The Founders reasoned that most electors would vote for one candidate from their own states…and it would be unlikely that voting along state lines would produce any candidate with a majority of the votes. (p. 75)

Consequently,

The Founders envisioned that in most cases the president would end up being chosen by the House of Representatives from the list of the top-five electoral vote recipients…Furthermore, there was no indication that the number of electoral votes received should carry any weight besides creating a list of the top five candidates…The process was not intended to be democratic. (p. 76)

I found the issues discussed above to be of particular interest. But there is far more in the book to learn from, and often be surprised by, in comparison to what history courses usually teach.

Such issues include the evolution of parties, the influence of Andrew Jackson, who “fought for democracy, but, ironically, the result of making the nation’s government more democratic has been to expand the scope and power of government in response to popular demands for govern programs,” (p. 91) which “the Founders foresaw and tried to guard against by limiting the role of democracy in their new government,” (p. 91), the War Between the States (“the single most important event in the transformation of American government,” (p. 93) including the elimination of state succession as a real possibility, the Reconstruction Era amendments, the origins of interest group politics, the evolution of federal regulatory power, the evolution of the incentives of civil servants, the Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) as “a response to the demand for a larger federal government,” (p. 149) a different take on the 1920s, in which “[f]ar from representing a retreat from progressivism, the 1920s extended the now-established orthodoxy, (p. 154) added insight into the New Deal and the courts, Social Security as the “one New Deal program for the responsibility for fundamentally transforming the historical, constitutional role of the federal government,” (p. 175) how “The Great Society represents the ultimate triumph of democracy, because for the first time a major expansion in the scope of government was based on the demands of the electorate, with no extenuation circumstances” (p. 205), and far more.

In sum, there are very many good reasons to recommend Liberty in Peril. In it, Randall Holcombe provides not just a powerful and insightful look into crucial aspects of America’s evolution away from the principles of the revolution that created it but also an important warning:

Unfortunately, many Americans do not appear to fully understand these dangers as they continue to push the foundations of their government away from liberty and toward democracy. (p. 225)

COLUMN BY

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

PODCAST: Dem’s HR-1 and The Jim Crow Shtick

When it comes to voting reform, Democrats gleefully point at their pending H.R.1 “For the People” Act which they claim will make voting accessible to more people, most of whom are illegal aliens. When the Republicans push for voter reform, such as what was recently implemented in Georgia, the Democrats accuse them of implementing racially designed “Jim Crow” laws. Even President Biden called the Georgia law, “Jim Crow in the 21st Century,” as well as many other Democrats and left-leaning media personnel.

Some of us are old enough to remember Jim Crow laws, but most of the voters today haven’t a clue regarding its background and it’s applicability today. Let’s try to clear this up.

Following the American Civil War, the country entered a period of “Reconstruction” of the South. This consisted of laws devised by northern Republicans to get the South back on its feet economically while securing the civil rights of the former slaves. Over time, federal troops withdrew from the South and Democrats took control of the State Assemblies and governor mansions. To combat Republican policies, these “Dixiecrats” implemented sweeping rules and regulations depriving blacks of their civil rights, particularly in the areas of segregation, land ownership and voting, thereby catering to white control. In effect, they were able to turn the clock backwards to before the Civil War without having to enslave anyone.

Over time, “Dixiecrats” power grew in parallel with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In particular, both groups grew to prominence during the Wilson administration and beyond. It finally ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act under President Lyndon Johnson.

The rules devised by the southern Democrats came to be referred to as “Jim Crow,” which was named after a theater character stereotyping blacks from the early part of the 19th century. Such laws defined where a black could go to school, where to eat and drink, shop, reside, ride a bus, vote, and many other oppressive stipulations.

Interestingly, now the Republicans are being accused of enacting similar laws. It is rather ironic the party of Lincoln, who fought for the freedom of slaves, is being falsely accused of such nonsense. Let us not forget, not one Republican president owned a slave. The Democrats cannot claim otherwise.

Today’s Republicans are simply angling to stop illegal voting, such as fraudulent and duplicate voting. This is why they are in favor of such things as Voter Identification, verifying signatures, review of voter rolls, etc., none of which is in the Democrats’ H.R.1 Bill. In fact, H.R.1 would simplify voter cheating if enacted. Instead, Democrats claim Republican voter initiatives would prohibit people from voting, hence they claim it is “Racist” and akin to “Jim Crow.” Of course, this is an old tactic used by the radical left to try and bully people and has nothing to do with reality. It is a familiar shtick to falsely cast dispersions on others while they, themselves, are the true culprits trying to undermine the system for political gain.

What we have to realize is those who falsely claim others are racists, are truly the racists themselves. You can call the Republicans whatever you want, but you cannot distort the truth, especially when it comes to “Jim Crow.” Frankly, this tactic has been used so many times, I doubt if it is effective any longer. However, as long as the populace remains ignorant of our history, such as who the true designers of “Jim Crow” laws were, we will continue to produce a sucker every minute. Then again, some people like to be deceived.

For more info, see; “Voter Fraud is Dirty Business” – July 09, 2020

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

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

PODCAST: Actually, Everything the DEMOCRATS do is Racist!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

RACHEL ALEXANDER

Rachel Alexander is a political columnist and the founder and editor of Intellectual Conservative. She is a regular contributor to Townhall, the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research and The Christian Post . She frequently appears on TV and news radio as a conservative commentator, and also hosted a radio show in Phoenix. She previously served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, corporate attorney for Go Daddy Software. Rachel was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists and is a recipient of Americans for Prosperity’s RightOnline Activist of the Year award.

TOPIC: Actually, Everything the DEMOCRATS do is Racist!

CATHERINE MORTENSEN

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government. She can be reached at cmortensen@getliberty.org. Mortensen is a former TV news anchor in New Mexico, elected official in Southern Colorado, and Capitol Hill communications director for Congressman Doug Lamborn. She also served as a spokesperson at the National Rifle Association. She has bachelor’s degrees in journalism and political science from Boston University and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

TOPIC: Fight to protect judicial independence ought to be bipartisan, where are the Democrats?

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Utah Governor Defends Racism As Long As It’s Against White Kids

If America has a ‘race problem’, this is it.

Utah Governor Defends Racism As Long As It’s Against White Kids

By Jordan Davidson, The Federalist, April 16, 2021

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox defended racism against white kids during a question and answer session with constituents on Thursday.

During the session, live-tweeted by the governor’s official Twitter account, one Utah citizen asked “if it’s racist that the Utah Jazz excludes white children from the team’s scholarship program.”

The program created by the NBA team allots a scholarship to a new “underrepresented student of color enrolling as a freshman for the 2021-22 school year” for every team win during the 2020-21 season basketball season. To qualify for the funds, students must have graduated from high school and be a “person of color.” Since the program’s start, the team has handed out nearly 50 full-ride scholarships to black and minority students only.

Despite the team’s deliberate exclusion of white students from the program, Cox said the scholarship requirements are not racist.

“It’s not racist. Ryan Smith and the Jazz can do what they want with their funds. All kids should have equal opportunities, and we’re proud of the Jazz,” he replied.

When asked if Cox believes that excluding white people from amenities, finances, and programs is racist, the governor’s office reiterated his former claim but said it did not apply to government scholarships.

“Gov. Cox believes the Utah Jazz has every right to act according to their own corporate values and issue scholarships to whomever they choose. Government scholarships, on the other hand, are not based on race,” a spokesperson from the governor’s office told The Federalist.

The Utah Jazz also did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.

In addition to his comments about racism during the question and answer session, Cox claimed, without evidence, that masks are still required in Utah schools because education facilities “had high transmission rates early in the pandemic.” Cox also told a citizen concerned about the governor’s amassed power during the pandemic that he doesn’t support “reining in executive powers — especially on health and safety issues.”

https://twitter.com/GovCox/status/1382762842965766145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1382762842965766145%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2021%2F04%2F16%2Futah-governor-defends-racism-as-long-as-its-against-white-kids%2F

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Get the f*** out!’: Black protesters in Brooklyn Center eviscerate white protester, tell him ‘you’re white, you already don’t belong!’NEWS

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.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Says There Won’t be police Reform Until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

More reprehensible anti-police propaganda from CNN. This is why attacks on police officers is skyrocketing. This is why police officers are retiring en masse. CNN is a disgrace. Americans need to stop watching this disgusting and dangerous network.

Chris Cuomo says there won’t be police reform until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

‘What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police’ Cuomo said, pretending to be a White parent

By Fox News, April 17, 2021

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Friday during “Cuomo Primetime” said that police and gun reform won’t happen until  “White people’s kids start getting killed.”

“Shootings, gun laws, access to weapons. Oh, I know when they’ll change,” said the anchor. “[When] your kids start getting killed. White people’s kids start getting killed.”

Cuomo put on a hypothetical accent and pretended to be a White parent. “What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police,” he said.

“That kind of madness. That kind of mania. That will be you. That will be the majority. Because it’s your people,” Cuomo said, apparently directed at the White members of his audience.

“How many more?” Cuomo asked. “Die of the pandemic, dying from police shootings. George Floyd, Daunte Wright. I wonder if you’ll remember their names six months from now because they’ll be replaced by so many others.”

Cuomo pointed out that some focus on the past of the victims in police shootings.

“Why do that? Because you wanna make the problem them,” he said. “Takes the onus off the idea that you’re wrong about policing needing to change.”

“Forget that police are trained to deal with non-compliance with force that is not lethal. Hey, comply or die,” Cuomo said.

The U.S. has faced multiple major shootings over the past month, most recently in Indianapolis where a gunman opened fire at a FedEx facility, killing eight.

At the same time, tensions have reached new heights in some areas of the country where protesters and rioters are on edge as they await the verdict of the Derek Chauvin trial and demand justice in the police-involved killing of Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and 13-year-old Adam Toledo in Chicago, among others.

RELATED ARTICLE: LEFTWING RIOTS: Portland IN FLAMES overnight as ANTIFA sets Apple store, other buildings 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.