Florida Passes New Elections Bill Adding Restrictions to Vote-by-Mail and Ballot Drop Boxes

Without free and fair elections, we have no Republic. This is where we plant our flag.

Florida Passes New Elections Bill Adding Restrictions to Vote-by-Mail and Ballot Drop Boxes

By Katabella Roberts, The Epoch Times, April 30, 2021:

April 30, 2021 Updated: April 30, 2021 Florida’s Republican-controlled Senate on April 29 passed a new bill that places several restrictions around vote-by-mail and ballot drop boxes.

The bill, SB 90 (pdf), was passed in the state House 77-40 and in the Senate 23-17. It now goes to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it.

If signed, it would require signature verification for voters, provided by a “wet signature” physically signed on paper kept on file, and access to drop boxes would be limited to early voting hours unless they are located at election supervisors’ offices. Drop boxes would also have to be monitored in-person by an elections official, and ID would be required when dropping off ballots.

Other aspects in the bill include limitations on who can return a finished mail-in ballot, preventing election officials from entering consent agreements, and requiring voters to request a mail ballot every election cycle, rather than every two, as under current law.

The legislation would also ban anyone from “engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter” but allow election supervisors to provide “non-partisan assistance,” such as giving items, including food and water, to voters within the restricted zones.

The bill also requires supervisors to set and publish drop box locations 30 days before the election. Those locations cannot be moved for any purpose.

SB 90 was amended from a previous stricter version which had originally banned drop boxes completely.

DeSantis has previously expressed his support for enacting stronger election integrity protections and providing unprecedented election transparency for Florida residents.

A spokesperson for Gov. Ron DeSantis said he supports the bill, noting it “will ensure that Florida remains a national leader in election security, integrity and transparency,” ABC News reported.

Democrats, including state Rep. Anna Eskamani, responded to the Senate’s decision on Thursday, calling it a “Georgia-style voter suppression bill” on Twitter.

“It makes it harder to vote by mail, prohibits groups from passing out water to voters and tries to limit ballot boxes. I’m sad but proud of the Democratic Caucus for fighting so hard. Keep fighting,” Eskamani wrote.

Earlier this month, the state of Georgia passed more stringent voting laws which elicited widespread condemnation from Democrats, including President Joe Biden who branded it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “an atrocity.”

The new law adds a host of new voting restrictions, including photo identification requirements for absentee voting, limits on the use of ballot drop boxes, and making it illegal to take food or water to voters in line. It also gives state lawmakers more control over elections.

Other states with GOP-controlled legislatures such as Arizona are also looking at making changes to their mail-in voting systems.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

VIDEO: California Officials Pressured Big Tech to Censor Social Media Election Posts

We now have chilling details of California state officials and Big Tech executives conspiring to uproot the First Amendment and influence the 2020 election. And, key targets were Judicial Watch and me.

The proof is in 540 pages and a supplemental four pages of documents we received from the office of the Secretary of State of California revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these documents were “misinformation briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK, which lists Biden for President as their top client of 2020.

The documents show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube to censor my Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean up.

We received the records in response to our California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests to the Office of the California Secretary of State for records related to the Office of Election Cybersecurity’s database of social media posts; communications with social media companies; and other social media related records regarding the 2020 elections. We filed the requests after a December 2020 report surfaced that the state agency was surveilling, tracking, and seeking to censor the speech of Americans:

The Office of Election Cybersecurity in the California Secretary of State’s office monitored and tracked social media posts, decided if they were misinformation, stored the posts in an internal database coded by threat level, and on 31 different occasions requested posts be removed. In 24 cases, the social media companies agreed and either took down the posts or flagged them as misinformation, according to Jenna Dresner, senior public information officer for the Office of Election Cybersecurity.

“We don’t take down posts, that is not our role to play,” Dresner said. “We alert potential sources of misinformation to the social media companies and we let them make that call based on community standards they created.”

On September 24, 2020, a California Secretary of State chart lists a video I did and falsely alleges:

Head of conservative group Judicial Watch Hosts video alleging Democrats benefit from incorrect voter rolls and ballot collection.

The Secretary of State’s office details its communication with YouTube: “We wanted to flag this YouTube video because it misleads community members about elections or other civic processes and misrepresents the safety and security of mail-in ballots.” The chart quotes me describing Judicial Watch’s statement about its federal lawsuit settlement with Los Angeles County that will require it to clean up voter rolls and how a Michigan court “changed the rules” on ballot deadlines and ballot harvesting. (The controversial decision was overturned in October 2020.)

The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020.
On September 11, 2020, outside consultant Zeke Sandoval, of the SKDK communications firm, provides the Secretary of State’s Office a “Misinformation Daily Briefing,” which again targets me:

Trump tweeted, “The big Unsolicited Ballot States should give it up NOW, before it is too late, and ask people to go to the Polling Booths and, like always before, VOTE. Otherwise, MAYHEM!!! Solicited Ballots (absentee) are OK,” and Twitter was quick to fact check and shared a link with info about how voting by mail is safe and secureViral reply on Twitter from Tom Fitton asserting, “Mailing 51 million ballots to those who haven’t asked for increases risk of voter fraud and voter intimidation!”

A 30-page “Misinformation Tracking Sheet” lists social media posts that the office disagrees with and has asked social media companies to remove.

In an internal email on January 12, 2021, Deputy Secretary of State and Chief Communications Officer Paula Valle emails Chief Counsel Steve Reyes and Jenna Dresner in the Office of Cybersecurity, as well as Press Secretary Sam Mahood stating that she is uncomfortable with CalMatters reporter Fred Brewster’s questions about the office’s tracking and censoring efforts:

Hi Steve – Please see below – the reporter at Cal Matters who PRA’d us is doing a follow-up story. We asked him to send us his questions. I am not necessarily comfortable with his line of questions and the additional doors that this will open. I want to get your feedback I would simply like to give him a statement about what our goal is and leave it at that. Thoughts?

Brewster’s questions, which include concerns from citizens who were targeted by the “Misinformation Tracker,” were sent on January 12, 2021:
I reached out to the users on page 7 and page 21 of the Misinformation Tracker request I received. Both individuals wanted to know how their posts ended up being labeled misinformation and how, given their relatively small following, they came to the attention of the Office of Election Cybersecurity?
Another user named “DC O’Bryan” had his post taken down (page 5 of the Misinformation Tracker). In an email, you highlight a report sent to the state that says, “I don’t know if this is hot air meant to provoke. If it is, a call from an official might get the point across that you don’t joke about election fraud.” Was O’Bryan called to confirm that his post was a joke?
How does the Office of Election Cybersecurity differentiate between parody and satire and misinformation?
Did CISA, Facebook, or any other partners provide guidance on how to spot and define misinformation? If someone has their posts in the Misinformation Tracker, are there plans to contact those individuals and is there a way for them to petition the state to delete them?
The Secretary of State’s Office emails Facebook and Twitter on April 25, 2019, with requests from the Office to remove tweets and posts for what they have labeled “misinformation.”

The office emails Facebook, attempting to set up a call to discuss removing future posts. This 15-minute call is with “new Facebook contact for social media reporting: Javier Hernandez, Politics & Government Outreach” in order to discuss how the office will report posts to Facebook. In the email, Facebook outlines its goals to directly work with “electoral authorities in every state” so that they can “report instances of voter suppression on Facebook directly to our team, so [Facebook] can look at them quickly and remove them from the site.”

On December 31, 2019, after the Secretary of State’s office reports a tweet to Support@Twitter.com, Kevin Kane, a Twitter representative, replies and offers his direct contact for the Office’s future needs in removing posts.

In a September 21, 2020, email chain with the subject line “elections issue,” Jenna Dresner in the Secretary of State’s Office of Cybersecurity writes to “Cristina and team” at Facebook at 11:43 a.m.: “We want to flag this Instagram post.”

The reply comes from Facebook Community Operations: “Thank you for your report. We have reviewed the … content and can confirm that the content has been removed …” At 12:53 pm. Dresner writes to Press Secretary Sam Mahood, Social Media Coordinator Akilah Jones and others, “Post from this morning was removed (and fast!) Akilah we can update tracker.”

In an October 28, 2020, email, Jones writes to Flores at Facebook and CCs Dresner that a post, which was from a user named @Screenplaywale, “voters are being asked to gerrymander and voter suppress their ‘trump supporting father’s ballots.’”

In an email chain on September 14, 2020, titled “Election Issue” the office internally complains about how long it takes Facebook to remove a post and how to speed up this process.

Mahood writes to Dresner: “It looks like it took Facebook 2 weeks to respond to Chris. This is way too long, we should raise to FB and make sure we know best method to report posts.” Dresner responds: “Sure – I’m 98% sure this is the one you chased with an email directly to our FB contacts which resulted in it taken down that day. I can confirm that process works for the future?”

On August 22, 2019, Maria Benson, director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State emails the communications directors for Secretaries of State offices that Twitter confirmed that they streamlined their process for government officials to report “misinformation:”

Great news—Twitter is now on-boarding states into their mis/disinformation partner support portal! Once on-boarded, you will be able to directly report mis/disinformation instead of having to submit it to me first….” [Emphasis in original]

Benson also gives contact information for Facebook and Google complaints, and says: “If any of the items you reported do not get prompt attention, please let me know and I can also reach out the companies.”

On September 24, 2019, the California Secretary of State’s office confirms that it plans to participate in Facebook’s “misinformation” training which is a review from Facebook on “monitoring guidelines for reporting misinformation” and teaches participants how to use the direct reporting channel Facebook opened for them.

On October 1, 2020, Benson forwards information from Twitter about their training to directly remove posts they label as misinformation to the Secretary of State’s office. This is described by Twitter as: “training on creative and effective content strategies on Twitter in advance of the U.S. Election,” as well as “onboarding state and local election officials onto Twitter’s Partner Support Portal.” This portal is described as, “a dedicated way for critical stakeholders – like you – to flag concerns directly to Twitter.”

These documents detail a conspiracy against the First Amendment rights of Americans by the California Secretary of State, the Biden campaign operation, and Big Tech. These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column and video are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Profiteers of Biden Administration’s Open Borders Policy — Malfeasance Has Its Rewards.

It has been said that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

The border crisis endangers national security, public health and public safety, yet for the Biden administration, the border crisis that creates consternation for most Americans, incredibly, is viewed as a success story by Biden and the radicalized Democrat Party.

As you will see shortly, Biden immigration policies are also important to human traffickers, drug smugglers, terrorist groups and American companies that move the money of all of the above and, incredibly, even the “fees” and ransom money paid to the human traffickers by aliens’ family members.

As I noted in my recent article, Biden Amps Up The Immigration Delivery System, the Biden administration’s refusal to declare a border crisis is more than a matter of semantics.

Over the past several decades, globalists in both major political parties have come to see immigration as a delivery system rather than a law enforcement system that is dedicated to protecting America and Americans.

This immigration delivery system delivers a virtually unlimited supply of cheap exploitable workers (and not just the illegal aliens who perform economic bottom rung low-skilled, physically demanding menial jobs, but increasing numbers of highly skilled alien workers who are granted visas to work legally in the United States).  This delivery system also delivers a nearly unlimited number of foreign tourists (hence the continually expanding Visa Waiver Program), a huge number of foreign students including students from adversarial nations such as China, and a virtually unlimited number of clients for immigration law firms.  Indeed, there are a significant number of  immigration lawyers in both political parties.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform was never intended to get the “aliens out of the shadows” but to motivate aliens to head for the waiting rooms of immigration law firms.

To actually get the aliens out of the shadows, our government would need more ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents).  But the hiring of more ICE agents has never been considered by either political party.  Such agents would not only arrest illegal aliens but would likely uncover crooked employers, crooked lawyers and interfere with the immigration delivery system.

These politicians know where “their bread is buttered” and understand that they must act to satisfy the demands of those who write the fat checks.  Simply stated, the term “campaign contribution” is Orwellian Newspeak for the actual appropriate term: “Bribe.”

No administration, however, has had the unmitigated chutzpah and utter contempt for the safety of America and Americans to do what the Biden administration is now doing, making an obvious concerted effort to remove any and all deterrents against illegal immigration and essentially put control of America’s southern border under the de facto control of the drug cartels and human traffickers (often one and the same).

Biden Cripples Immigration Law Enforcement, his Executive Orders handcuff agents – and set law violators free.

In the past, the Border Patrol checked transportation facilities such as bus stations, train stations and airports to locate and arrest illegal aliens who evaded detection by the Border Patrol and were then heading to the interior of the United States.

Under Biden’s policies, however, the overwhelmed Border Patrol is now driving illegal aliens to bus terminals so that they can head for the interior of the United States!

Some of these aliens are not even being given immigration court dates because, as it now stands, the system is so overloaded that hearings for these aliens won’t be possible for years.

The failure to deter illegal immigration has encouraged a human tsunami of foreign nationals, from all over the world, including countries that sponsor terrorism, to head for the United States.

This has created a huge opportunity for the human traffickers and gangs to make unprecedented profits as more aliens seek their “services.”

On April 20, 2021 Vice reported, US Companies Are Helping Mexican Cartels Get Rich Kidnapping Migrants, noting that the  wave of migration at the border is a boon for kidnappers, human smugglers, and the American businesses that handle their money.

Here is an important excerpt from the Vice report:

VICE World News reviewed 40 ransom payments made through money transfers in eight different kidnapping cases from 2014 through January of this year. Virtually all of the money flowed through U.S. companies, mostly through Western Union and MoneyGram but also Walmart and lesser-known companies like Ria. By our rough estimate, criminal organizations in Mexico have made around $800 million on migrant kidnappings alone over the past decade, and money-transfer companies received a cut on nearly every transaction through fees and exchange rates. American corporations are profiting from kidnappings.

Bad as this is, let us remember that those who engage in human trafficking and drug smuggling are violent criminals, many of whom  are working in conjunction with terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based terror organization that is under the control of Iran.  Human trafficking and drug smuggling not only provide huge financial rewards for these criminal and terrorist organizations but provide terror organizations with the ability to move sleeper agents into the United States.

Consider some experts from my 2019 article, Jihad At The Border:

On April 30, 2019 the Justice Department issued a press release, Jordanian National Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Bring Aliens into the United States, which noted that in 2017 the smuggler smuggled aliens from Yemen, a Special Interest Country” into the United States without inspection from Monterrey, Mexico to Piedras Negras in Texas.

As I reported in a previous article, on January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated the “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.  Additional witness included the heads of the FBI, CIA and other agencies.

The threat assessment warned about the dangers posed by transnational gangs such as MS-13 and went on to report:

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.

Drug Trafficking

The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.

On April 17, 2018 the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, conducted a hearing on the topic, “State Sponsors Of Terrorism: An Examination Of Irans Global Terrorism Network.”

The prepared testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, included this alarming excerpt:

In recent years, Hezbollahs Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites….

This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollahs growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.

Biden and his cohorts have discovered that indeed, “Crime does pay” and the cost is not only measured in money but in human suffering and even the loss of human lives.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Google Search: Driving the Pornography Industry’s Profits

As recently as December 2020, when NCOSE researchers conducted a Google search test for “child pornography,” many top results yielded links to hardcore pornography websites, including Pornhub and XVideos—effectively advertising for the world’s largest sexual exploiters that are currently under increased public scrutiny for the proliferation of child sex abuse material on its site.

Two weeks ago NCOSE researchers tried the term “child pornography” again and were thrilled that instead of links to Pornhub or to any other porn sites, the only results on the first 10 pages that we reviewed included information for child safety organizations, news articles, and legislation. In fact, several other search terms that used to direct people to Pornhub (“rape porn,” “incest porn,” and “drugged porn”) no longer do so—though unfortunately they still result in pages and pages of other hardcore porn sites.

Can we call it a “win” that Google no longer drives people looking up “child pornography” to an exploitative website known to profit from images of children being raped? Can we call it a victory when it took a NYT expose, government intervention, and other corporations to cut ties with Pornhub for Google to change its algorithms? Yes. Absolutely! Because when tech mega-giant Google makes any changes—however seemingly “simple” – it has vast ripple effects with the potential to impact hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. It’s why we celebrate any time Google makes any move toward protecting dignity and actually does “the right thing” as its motto claims.

But it’s too little. And while it’s certainly late, it’s thankfully not too late for Google to stop buttressing an industry that profits from people’s trauma and pain.

While Google has seemingly reduced the number of searches that result in Pornhub showing up on the first page (or even as the first result), several search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” are still directing people to Pornhub, to its main competitor Xvideos, and to countless other hardcore pornography sites.

New York Times two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nick Kristof (whose investigative piece Children of Pornhub published in December 2020 turned the tide against Pornhub and parent company MindGeek) most recently set his scrutinizing sights on XVideos– asking the same question we and other advocates have been demanding for years, “Why Do We Let Corporations Profit from Rape Videos?” Kristof lambasts Google for serving as “a pillar of this sleazy ecosystem, for roughly half the traffic reaching XVideos and XNXX appears to come from Google searches.”

As Google has consistently held the monopoly of search engine market share worldwide – more than 90%, it’s likely Google has assisted countless people in accessing child sex abuse and other violent, illegal material by allowing links to Pornhub, XVideos, and other hardcore pornography sites to show up at the top of the search results page for searches like “child porn.” Studies have shown that the higher the rank on a Search Engine Results Page (SERP), the higher the likelihood users will click on the link, with the first result having the highest clickrate. “Teen porn” and “choking porn” still offer Pornhub as the #1 result. Pornhub and other porn sites rely on the SEO (search engine optimization)—in fact, it’s at the core of their business models to ensure their sites appear on the top page: so much so that even when they are ordered to take down images by lawyers or law enforcement, they leave the titles, tags, and thumbnails up so a Google search can still find them and bring people to Pornhub. Survivors tell us thumbnails showing their abuse are still widely available through a simple Google search of their name – even when the video has been removed from the pornography site.

Why are we letting Big Tech line the pockets of Big Porn, which has monetized the most violent, degrading, racist, and often illegal acts committed against children and vulnerable adults?

NCOSE met with Google executives last February to press on them to change their algorithms in order to stop driving people to hardcore pornography sites and assault users—including young children – with violent, degrading pornographic images. We pressed on them to stop directing people to hardcore pornography for searches like the ones listed above and others, like “slavery porn” or “Asian slave.”  Not only did searches related to pornography and prostitution lead to Pornhub and other sites, but scientific and innocent terms like “happy black teen” would populate the screen with images of torture and abuse in under a second, together with links to hardcore porn sites.

Google claimed they couldn’t do more, hiding behind “free speech” to cleanse their hands and justify inactioneven though child pornography and hardcore pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, it’s illegal. Google claimed Pornhub was a “legitimate” site, despite mounting evidence of criminal activity and survivors speaking out and they couldn’t mess with search term algorithms or result positioning (though even at the time we knew they could and did change search result rankings and have more recently curated search content that was potentially harmful on a wide scale such as COVID-19  health information). We continued to push on Google to proactively ensure their products and tools were not buttressing illegal and unethical industries. Soon after NCOSE met with their executives, they did in fact make changes so that scientific terms no longer produces hardcore pornographic images, and that innocent search terms wouldn’t result in hardcore porn links and images (which in and of themselves could cause harm to the viewer—especially minors)

Determining how people receive information and what information they see first places Google in a great position of power—and therefore significant ethical responsibility. Google can and MUST continue to adjust its algorithms so that other search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” stop leading to Pornhub.com and that other terms like “rape porn” or “family porn” lead to resources, not videos of sexual assault and incest. Google has showed us they’re able to “do the right thing.” We hope they do so again.

Google Search: Driving the Pornography Industry’s Profits

As recently as December 2020, when NCOSE researchers conducted a Google search test for “child pornography,” many top results yielded links to hardcore pornography websites, including Pornhub and XVideos—effectively advertising for the world’s largest sexual exploiters that are currently under increased public scrutiny for the proliferation of child sex abuse material on its site.

Two weeks ago NCOSE researchers tried the term “child pornography” again and were thrilled that instead of links to Pornhub or to any other porn sites, the only results on the first 10 pages that we reviewed included information for child safety organizations, news articles, and legislation. In fact, several other search terms that used to direct people to Pornhub (“rape porn,” “incest porn,” and “drugged porn”) no longer do so—though unfortunately they still result in pages and pages of other hardcore porn sites.

Can we call it a “win” that Google no longer drives people looking up “child pornography” to an exploitative website known to profit from images of children being raped? Can we call it a victory when it took a NYT expose, government intervention, and other corporations to cut ties with Pornhub for Google to change its algorithms? Yes. Absolutely! Because when tech mega-giant Google makes any changes—however seemingly “simple” – it has vast ripple effects with the potential to impact hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. It’s why we celebrate any time Google makes any move toward protecting dignity and actually does “the right thing” as its motto claims.

But it’s too little. And while it’s certainly late, it’s thankfully not too late for Google to stop buttressing an industry that profits from people’s trauma and pain.

While Google has seemingly reduced the number of searches that result in Pornhub showing up on the first page (or even as the first result), several search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” are still directing people to Pornhub, to its main competitor Xvideos, and to countless other hardcore pornography sites.

New York Times two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nick Kristof (whose investigative piece Children of Pornhub published in December 2020 turned the tide against Pornhub and parent company MindGeek) most recently set his scrutinizing sights on XVideos– asking the same question we and other advocates have been demanding for years, “Why Do We Let Corporations Profit from Rape Videos?” Kristof lambasts Google for serving as “a pillar of this sleazy ecosystem, for roughly half the traffic reaching XVideos and XNXX appears to come from Google searches.”

As Google has consistently held the monopoly of search engine market share worldwide – more than 90%, it’s likely Google has assisted countless people in accessing child sex abuse and other violent, illegal material by allowing links to Pornhub, XVideos, and other hardcore pornography sites to show up at the top of the search results page for searches like “child porn.” Studies have shown that the higher the rank on a Search Engine Results Page (SERP), the higher the likelihood users will click on the link, with the first result having the highest clickrate. “Teen porn” and “choking porn” still offer Pornhub as the #1 result. Pornhub and other porn sites rely on the SEO (search engine optimization)—in fact, it’s at the core of their business models to ensure their sites appear on the top page: so much so that even when they are ordered to take down images by lawyers or law enforcement, they leave the titles, tags, and thumbnails up so a Google search can still find them and bring people to Pornhub. Survivors tell us thumbnails showing their abuse are still widely available through a simple Google search of their name – even when the video has been removed from the pornography site.

Why are we letting Big Tech line the pockets of Big Porn, which has monetized the most violent, degrading, racist, and often illegal acts committed against children and vulnerable adults?

NCOSE met with Google executives last February to press on them to change their algorithms in order to stop driving people to hardcore pornography sites and assault users—including young children – with violent, degrading pornographic images. We pressed on them to stop directing people to hardcore pornography for searches like the ones listed above and others, like “slavery porn” or “Asian slave.”  Not only did searches related to pornography and prostitution lead to Pornhub and other sites, but scientific and innocent terms like “happy black teen” would populate the screen with images of torture and abuse in under a second, together with links to hardcore porn sites.

Google claimed they couldn’t do more, hiding behind “free speech” to cleanse their hands and justify inactioneven though child pornography and hardcore pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, it’s illegal. Google claimed Pornhub was a “legitimate” site, despite mounting evidence of criminal activity and survivors speaking out and they couldn’t mess with search term algorithms or result positioning (though even at the time we knew they could and did change search result rankings and have more recently curated search content that was potentially harmful on a wide scale such as COVID-19  health information). We continued to push on Google to proactively ensure their products and tools were not buttressing illegal and unethical industries. Soon after NCOSE met with their executives, they did in fact make changes so that scientific terms no longer produces hardcore pornographic images, and that innocent search terms wouldn’t result in hardcore porn links and images (which in and of themselves could cause harm to the viewer—especially minors)

Determining how people receive information and what information they see first places Google in a great position of power—and therefore significant ethical responsibility. Google can and MUST continue to adjust its algorithms so that other search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” stop leading to Pornhub.com and that other terms like “rape porn” or “family porn” lead to resources, not videos of sexual assault and incest. Google has showed us they’re able to “do the right thing.” We hope they do so again.

COLUMN BY

Lina Nealon

DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

Lina Nealon is committed to promoting the dignity of every human being and creating a society where everyone can reach their full potential.  As the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s Director of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives, she spearheads NCOSE’s campaigns to hold corporations accountable for profiting from sexual exploitation. As Founding Director of Demand Abolition, Lina designed and led the first national program combatting the demand for paid sex that drives the global sex industry. Under her leadership, Demand Abolition coalesced a vastly diverse network of survivors, movement leaders, and allies across sectors and disciplines to implement tactics to stop sex buyers, disrupt commercial sex markets, and transform cultural norms around buying sex.  Lina was the leading architect of the Cities Empowered Against Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), a collaboration between twelve major US cities measurably decreasing demand in their communities and a founder co-chair of the World Without Exploitation coalition.

Ms. Nealon has advised governors, attorneys general, mayors and other elected officials, police chiefs, leading philanthropists, and business leaders in promising practices to reduce demand and has drafted numerous policies and legislation at the federal, state, and local levels to stop exploitation. She co-chaired the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Anti-Trafficking Taskforce Demand Committee and was a founding member of Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Working Group on Modern Slavery. Ms. Nealon has provided expert commentary and has published articles for top-tier media including MSNBC, PBS, NPR, Boston Globe, Congressional Quarterly Review, Al Jazeera, etc.

A mother of three girls and a sexual assault survivor herself, Ms. Nealon is driven to elevate survivor leadership and promote women’s and girls’ empowerment. As a Policy Specialist and Trainer with the Institute for Inclusive Security, Lina ensured women’s significant representation in peace processes and reconstruction efforts across dozens of post-conflict countries. She served as Executive Director of Girls on the Run (Greater Triangle Area, NC), sat on the Women2Women Advisory Council, and has mentored numerous young women in building their confidence, leadership skills, and resilience. Lina and her husband Brian are raising four young, adventurous, nature-loving, socially-conscious abolitionists in Durham, North Carolina.

EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Officer Derek Chauvin — Human Sacrifice to Marxist Mobs

“Socialism is an alternative to capitalism as potassium cyanide is an alternative to water.” – Ludwig von Mises,Human Action: A Treatise on Economics

“If you can convince people that freedom is injustice, they will then believe that slavery is freedom.” – Stefan Molyneux

“Communism is the final logic of the dehumanization of man.” – Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

“Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.” – John F. Kennedy

“Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.” – Isaiah Berlin, British Philosopher


The jury in the Chauvin case came back with a guilty verdict on all counts, second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in a case that had sparked nationwide riots over the death of George Floyd.

Of course, they did.

Jurors were terrified that BLM and Antifa Marxist mobs would come to their homes and splatter pig’s blood on their doors or burn their homes to the ground or worse. Alternate juror, Lisa Christensen admitted same to reporters when she stated she didn’t want to go through the rioting.

Just like the cowards on the Supreme Court who refused to hear so many valid cases regarding the illegitimate and treasonous 2020 elections, fear overruled their duty.

There is no fair system of “law and order” in America. There is only the arbitrary application of power for political purposes. Mob rule has taken over America; law and order are dead, and the Constitutional right to due process has been shredded beyond recognition. The mobs are incited to tamper with juries and judges by the press arm of their media comrades and with the full weight and backing of the communist infiltrated governing establishment.

Derek Chauvin was never going to receive a fair trial.

MPD Neck Restraint Training

George Floyd was 6’6” and weighed 223 pounds and his violent criminal history went back decades.  When he was arrested in Minnesota for passing a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, he refused to get into the police car claiming he had claustrophobia, although he had just been pulled out of a vehicle with several people, including a drug dealer who refused to testify for fear of incriminating himself.

Minneapolis use-of-force trainer testified that officers are instructed that people under the influence of certain drugs can “become stronger” than they normally would be.  And even with three officers, they couldn’t contain Floyd; the ingested drugs were working on him.

Here’s the kicker though…the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) training materials show knee-to-neck restraint similar to the one used on Floyd.  The training materials specify: “the maximal restraint technique shall only be used in situations where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant property damage if not properly restrained.”  Well yes, Floyd would not get into the police vehicle and was combative.  However, there is a slide with a photo that states officers should “place the subject in the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia.”

An attorney for officer Thomas Lane, who was present at the scene, stated, “The training material supports that neck restraint was something taught to officers who, although new to the job, knew that officers are allowed to use reasonable force when needed. Based on Floyd’s actions up to this point, the officers had no idea what he would do next – hurt himself, hurt the officers, flee, or anything else, but he was not cooperating.”  Lane had asked Chauvin if they should turn Floyd on his side, and Chauvin said to leave him where he was until the ambulance arrived.

After the BLM/Antifa communist riots and destruction in Minneapolis, the MPD eliminated the neck restraint hold. Meanwhile Derek Chauvin had followed training and is now labeled a felon by the mob motivated jurors.

Officer Chauvin was trained to use this technique by the MPD.  He heard Floyd say he couldn’t breathe earlier, and that would infer that he should not have held subject Floyd in this manner for very long.  However, the size of George Floyd and his former combative stance against getting into the police car could have made the decision to continue the restraint a valid one.  No one knows.

Defense witness, Barry Brodd, a former Santa Rosa, California police officer, said he did not believe that the responding officers’ actions, pinning Floyd to the pavement while he was handcuffed facedown with Chauvin’s knee on his neck for what prosecutors have said was 9 minutes, 29 seconds, qualified as a use of force. He said that he believed it was a “control hold” and that he did not think Chauvin was inflicting any pain on Floyd.  Link

“I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified and was acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement, in his interactions with Mr. Floyd,” Brodd said.

No proof was ever offered that Chauvin’s knee killed George Floyd, because no such proof could ever be offered. The very notion was ridiculous. Floyd died from a lifetime of health-destroying decisions coupled with the lethal number of drugs in his system. If Floyd hadn’t died on camera, nothing would have happened. Instead, for political expediency, Chauvin was made into a human sacrifice. He was disowned by the state he served and the public he protected.

Even the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Patrick Yoes said, “The trial was fair and due process was served.”  Really?  Is the sacrificing of an officer to appease the communist mob’s American justice?  (BLM/Antifa still rioted.)

Chauvin was never going to receive a fair trial.

Other Factors

Everyone who saw the videos of Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck jumped to the conclusion that officer Chauvin killed Floyd via excessive force; even Rush Limbaugh made accusatory statements that never should have been uttered.  Despite the juror’s verdict, this appears to be invalid.

If people were to see the entire video, America would know that officer Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s shoulder, not his neck…but America’s comrades want a blood sacrifice of a police officer doing his job. During cross-examination, the Chief of Police admitted that Chauvin’s knee was on George Floyd’s shoulder blade after he was shown the body cam video from another perspective side-by-side.

Regardless of your views on the death of George Floyd, we know three things are true.

  1. George Floyd had a long violent criminal history and he had enough illicit drugs in his system to do grave damage. An autopsy found methamphetamine and enough fentanyl in Floyd’s system at the time of his death to kill him, along with heart disease. Investigators also found pills containing methamphetamine and fentanyl inside Floyd’s SUV and the backseat of a squad car officers tried to push him into.

Floyd had been sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for aggravated assault stemming from a robbery where Floyd entered a woman’s home, pointed a gun at her stomach and searched the home for drugs and money, according to court records.

  1. Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland and now a member of a consulting firm, testifying for the defense in the murder trial of officer Chauvin told the court that George Floyd died of a cardiac arrest combined with drug use, and not low oxygen as several prosecution witnesses claimed.

“Any of the sounds Mr. Floyd is making requires you to take air in … and out …,” Dr. Fowler said of bystander and police body camera videos showing Floyd pleading to breathe as three officers restrained him. “You cannot make sound unless you’re … moving air and your mouth is open.”

He said the fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, and possible carbon monoxide poisoning from auto exhaust from a nearby patrol car, were contributing factors.  The pathologist listed a multitude of factors: Floyd’s narrowed arteries, his enlarged heart, his high blood pressure, his drug use, the stress of his restraint, the vehicle exhaust, and a tumor or growth in his lower abdomen that can sometimes play a role in high blood pressure by releasing “fight-or-flight” hormones.  He testified that the manner of death was “undetermined” due to the combination of factors.

Dr. Fowler is being repaid for his testimony by having all of his reports of deaths in police custody, during his tenure as chief medical examiner, reviewed according to representatives from the offices of Governor Tim Walz (D) and Attorney General Keith Ellison (D).

  1. Communist revolutionary enemies of America used Floyd’s death to advance their hostile political agenda and gain deeper control of the narratives used to destroy America and her justice system.

Officer Chauvin was never going to receive a fair trial.

Biden, Pelosi and Waters

Prior to the verdict, Biden stated that he was praying for the right verdict and he phoned the family of George Floyd to say he was in prayers with them and was praying for a guilty verdict.  This is grounds for appeal, and should have been grounds for mistrial.

After the verdict of guilty on all counts came in, Biden made another inflammatory statement regarding Officer Chauvin’s trial and kowtowed to his BLM/Antifa comrades.  He said, “It was a murder in full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism the vice president just referred to.  The systemic racism that’s a stain on our nation’s soul.  The knee on the neck of justice for black Americans.”  Disgraceful!

Andrea Widburg’s recent American Thinker article stated, “Think about that: a police officer in one city follows the rules for dealing with an overdosing person, while surrounded by a large, threatening mob, and that suddenly becomes the symbol of a stain on the soul for all of America.  Really?”

Please…there was no systemic racism until the Democrats promoted it, along with their comrades, BLM/Antifa and the deceitful and treasonous media.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi probably made one of the most offensive and odious statements about George Floyd. During a news conference, she stated, “Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice, for being there to call out to your mom, how heartbreaking was that, and because of you … your name will always be synonymous with justice.”  She later added this, “His family’s calls for justice for his murder were heard around the world. He did not die in vain. We must make sure other families don’t suffer the same racism, violence and pain, and we must enact the George Floyd #JusticeInPolicing Act.”

The city of Minneapolis on March 12, 2021 agreed to pay $27 million to settle a lawsuit by the family of George Floyd over his death in police custody.

Don’t forget that Pelosi presented the folded flag to Floyd’s brother, a flag that represents an honor of service to the country. This was symbolic of hatred for the men and women who give their lives in service to this country…and a slap in the face to every military veteran.

Asked how protesters should respond if Chauvin isn’t found guilty, Maxine Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street. And we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.” Really Maxine? More rioting, arson, looting and vandalism of American businesses is just fine with you?  Her words are still active on FB and Twitter, but President Trump is not.

Waters’ statements seem to be in violation of House ethics rules that require members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

Maxine should be ousted from Congress, but her fellow comrades will support her vindictive and evil invectives. Her statements alone should overturn this trial.

Officer Chauvin was made a human sacrifice to the Marxist mobs by America’s “public servants.”

Ashli Babbitt

Here’s the real rub.  On January 6th, unarmed 14-year high-ranking Air Force veteran and patriotic Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt was savagely gunned down by the U.S. Capitol Police while peacefully protesting the illegitimate executive seizure of power by the Democrats through Manchurian candidate Joe Biden.

US Capitol special agent David Bailey, who killed Ashli Babbitt, is allegedly a Brazilian Immigrant and Black Lives Matter militant. According to reports, he threatened to kill Trump supporters on Facebook for months.  Why does he still have a job as a capitol agent?  DOJ officials determined there wasn’t enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution.  Marxist BLM members are apparently not to be violated, criticized, or tampered with.

Tucker Carlson reports that Samuel Montoya, the man who filmed the video showing Ashli Babbitt being shot, has been arrested and sits in jail. His crime? Apparently trespassing. Two-tiered justice, police state!

Hypocrisy

A year before the death of George Floyd, which inspired months upon months of protests across America, The Dallas Morning News (DMN) reported on the then-three-year-old story of a man with a case very similar to Floyd’s.

Tony Timpa, a 32-year-old man from north Texas, reportedly called 911 after having driven his car into a shady parking lot in a bout of drug-fueled panic and fear. According to a video released from DMN, Timpa told the dispatch officer he wasn’t taking his mental health medication and “had taken drugs.”

Just an hour later, Timpa was dead.  He was white, no charges were brought against the officers.

Barring a miracle, officer Chauvin will spend his life in prison.

Conclusion

Americans should be completely purged of the illusion that a fair justice system still exists that will protect them from the predatory actions of the Deep State. There is no fair system of “law and order” in America. There is only the arbitrary application of power for political purposes.  General Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Carter Page and so many others know this well.

The rule of law, truth, justice, righteousness and liberty are being destroyed incrementally by those who hate our God given freedoms.  America has long been infiltrated with the evil godless tentacles of hardcore communism.  This is why we saw such hatred and venom against the 45th President who by himself stood against this demonic onslaught, with little help from his own party.

The most important thing for America’s police is to protect, and the commies don’t want us protected.  If you think Minneapolis will never turn into Mogadishu – it’s coming.  The police are leaving cities in droves…and the Marxists in government want our guns.  Private property, protected by police departments, will be a thing of the past. It starts in our own backyard, in our home, in our small group, in our community.  Stand up!  Fight!  Take the country back!

George Washington had only a small percentage of Americans who fought with him for independence, God protected him and led him to victory and He will protect us.

We have patriotic warriors who are dedicated to saving our Republic from communist revolutionaries wishing our annihilation.  Help these organizations with your donations and work with them.

DefendingtheRepublic.org

The John Birch Society

God loves a cheerful giver and He hears the prayers of his children.  We are fighting an insurrection…more dangerous than the 1775 Revolutionary War for independence from Great Britain, but with God’s help, freedom will again prevail.

And having done all, TO STAND!

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Biden’s Curious Choice to Lead Customs and Border Protection

As Tucson Police Chief, Chris Magnus refused to assist Border Patrol.


The disaster on the U.S./Mexican border has catapulted the issue of border security to new levels of importance. Therefore, the Biden administration’s pick for the Director of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an always important position, has taken on additional significance.

On April 12, 2021 the Washington Post reported:  Biden picks Tucson police chief to run U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

That article began with this excerpt:

President Biden is preparing to nominate Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus to be commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, selecting a critic of the Trump administration’s immigration policies to run the country’s largest federal law enforcement agency as it contends with the biggest increase in migrants arriving at the southwest border in two decades.

Magnus has led the Tucson police department since 2016 and has prominently associated himself with the movement favored by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that emphasizes a less-aggressive, community-based policing model.

Magnus opposed efforts to make Tucson a “sanctuary city,” but he generally eschewed cooperation with federal immigration authorities, placing him at odds with the Border Patrol union — and many of the agents and officials who will potentially be under his command.

Here is another important excerpt from the Washington Post article:

Relations between Magnus and the Border Patrol have been frosty, according to three current and former CBP officials, particularly following an incident in 2017 when the Tucson police declined to assist the Border Patrol after a suspect escaped from custody.

The Border Patrol’s union officials called him “an ultraliberal social engineer who was given a badge and a gun by the City of Tucson,” in a 2018 Facebook post.

Magnus is a member of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is a partner to the National Immigration Forum and says on its website that local police should not be involved in federal immigration enforcement.

It is beyond outrageous that Biden would pick a leader for CBP who opposes cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration law enforcement. This alone should disqualify him from becoming the director of CBP.

It is more than a bit ironic that on April 21, 2021, Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a news release, “ICE officers arrest citizen of the Czech Republic in Illinois,” which began with the following statement:

CHICAGO — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers arrested a Czech Republic national convicted of attempted homicide and other crimes outside his residence in Lyons, Illinois April 19.

Tomas Ruckschlos, 34, was released into the community after serving time in prison for his crimes, without notification to ICE.

It is incredible that while ICE noted, with obvious frustration, the lack of cooperation by local police in Chicago that enabled an alien sought by ICE to be released into the community without making appropriate notification to ICE that Mr. Biden now seeks to have Chris Magnus lead CBP considering that he had similarly refused to cooperate with immigration law enforcement in the past.

The concept of various law enforcement agencies working cooperatively together has been a standard means of enabling various law enforcement agencies on all levels, to achieve common goals to enhance public safety and national security.

Such cooperation creates synergy, which is defined as:

The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

For decades various law enforcement agencies on the local, state and federal level have created a variety of task forces to achieve vital common, shared goals.

Consider the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) that includes a wide variety of law enforcement agencies to combat both international and domestic terrorism and operates under the aegis of the FBI includes ICE agents along with local and state police. In point of fact, the number of ICE agents who are assigned to this important task force is second only the FBI.

Virtually all international terrorists violate multiple laws comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) is another important multi-agency task force that, not unlike the JTTF includes law enforcement officers from various local, state and federal agencies including ICE.

Smuggling organizations frequently smuggle aliens as well as narcotics into the United States. Furthermore, many of the leaders of drug trafficking organizations are aliens who also violate numerous statutes found in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I was promoted to the position of INS Senior Special Agent and assigned to OCDETF for the final ten years of my 30-year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), so I speak from professional personal experience.

For the four years immediately preceding my promotion and assignment to the OCDETF I was assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Unified Intelligence Division (UID) in New York City, where I worked with a number of local and state police agencies as well as with other federal agencies and even law enforcement agencies of other countries.

In both of those assignments my unique authority as an INS agent was frequently a factor in our efforts to identify co-conspirators, when appropriate, to seek to bring criminal charges concerning violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, against those who engaged in drug trafficking and related crimes that frequently included human trafficking and various crimes of violence that are most often perpetrated within the various ethnic immigrant communities, with the immigrants most often suffering the most violence at the hands of these thugs.

In addition to assisting with narcotics investigations as a law enforcement agent, I was specifically able to contribute to major investigations and prosecutions by using my unique authority, as an INS agent, to cultivate confidential informants and cooperating witnesses in various ethnic immigrant communities in furtherance of our investigations of major international drug trafficking organizations.

Contrary to the claims that having immigration law enforcement personnel cooperating with local and state police would undermine community policing in ethnic immigrant communities, in my personal experience, quite the opposite was true.

Indeed, Mr. Magnus has made such fatuous claims in the past to justify his opposition to having his police department cooperate with immigration law enforcement agencies.

As an INS agent I was able to arrange for cooperating illegal aliens to remain in the United States if they assisted with law enforcement officers to identify criminals as well as criminal organizations. Various visas are now available for such cooperating aliens that, may even facilitated the admission of they family members from foreign countries if their assistance was deemed to be particularly instrumental.

My colleagues in other agencies such as the FBI, DEA and ATF frequently told me that my authority as an INS agent was frequently more effective in gaining the trust and cooperation of members of ethnic immigrant communities than was their ability to provide huge financial rewards for cooperating witnesses and informants.

In many cases, our investigations depended on the ability to cultivate such informants and cooperating witnesses.

Furthermore, criminal aliens and members of transnational criminal organizations generally live and operate within the ethnic immigrant communities, thereby posing a direct and immediate threat to the safety and wellbeing of these immigrants no matter where they originally came from.

Strong cooperation between all law enforcement agencies, especially ICE and CBP and local and state police can help to rid these communities of these violent and sociopathic predators, thereby making the lives of those in these various ethnic immigrant communities safer.

The goal of true “Community Policing” must be to safeguard the safety of the residents of the community and restore faith in our system of justice.

This is why there is a clear nexus between Interior Enforcement And The Border Crisis.

Additionally, there are a number of immigration-related criminal charges that can bring pressure to bear against foreign criminals and members of transnational gangs and international criminal and terrorist organizations.

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens, criminal aliens who are deported and then illegally reenter the United States face up to 20 years in prison. I worked with then-U.S. Senator Al D’Amato to create this enhancement for criminal aliens back in the early 1980’s.

Alien smugglers / human traffickers, whether they are United States citizens or aliens, may be prosecuted for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

Under the provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) any alien illegally present in the United States who is found to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce faces a maximum of 10 years imprisonment upon conviction for this crime.

Under the provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 1546 – Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents an alien who violates the provisions of this statute faces up to 20 years in prison if the violations were involved in drug trafficking and up to 25 years on prison if such crimes were related to international terrorism.

These laws were enacted to protect national security and public safety, yet Mr. Biden and his administration refuse to do what is necessary to live up to their oaths of office and protect America and Americans.

The next leader of CBP must fully embrace the notion of cooperation between all law enforcement agencies including CBP and ICE with local law enforcement and not seek to obstruct it.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Knots: “Roe v. Wade,” the Movie

Brad Miner reviews the new film about the case that legalized abortion and concludes you’d be better off watching “Gosnell” or “Unplanned”.


In a 1989 TV movie, Roe vs. Wade, Holly Hunter played “Ellen Russell” and Amy Madigan was Sarah Weddington, the plaintiff’s attorney who argued the infamous 1973 abortion case before SCOTUS. “Ellen Russell” stood for Norma McCorvey, the real Jane Roe, who by then had become a pro-life champion (and a Catholic). Hunter and Madigan won Emmys.

This was years before Ms. McCorvey recanted her “conversion,” saying she’d been paid to be a pro-life spokesperson and had never really abandoned her pro-abortion views. Operation Rescue officials admitted Norma was paid well; her public comments scripted. She should have won an acting award.

I mention this because it’s interesting and because a new movie, Roe v. Wade (PG-13), is not. Greer Grammer, daughter of Kelsey, plays Sarah Weddington this time but won’t win an Oscar – not because her performance is bad, but because the movie is.

It’s hard to untangle this knotted mess but I’ll try.

Written, directed, and produced by Nick Loeb and Cathy Allyn, it’s a vanity project for Mr. Loeb, who’s also the star. That’s the first knot: he’s a lousy actor.

Second knot, related to the first: The central conceit of the film is to focus less on the landmark case and more on the life of Bernard Nathanson, a role Mr. Loeb unwisely gave to himself. Nathanson was the notorious abortion doctor (and NARAL co-founder), who – via ultrasound imagery – had an epiphany about the truth of life in the womb, and became an anti-abortion campaigner and Catholic convert. His conversions were genuine.

The film owes much of its background to Nathanson’s post-conversion writing, especially his book, Aborting America. But the film does not make clear that he was still performing abortions as late as 1978-79 or that his religious conversion came in 1996 when he was 70.

Third knot: casting. On a limited budget, you don’t have all of Hollywood available: most actors are liberal and unlikely to appear in a pro-life film. There is a shortlist of pro-life conservatives in Tinseltown.

But not so short as to explain some of Roe v. Wade’s casting decisions: Roger Stone, political consultant and convicted felon (pardoned by President Trump) as a reporter; the My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell also as a reporter; pro-life activist Alveda King as the mother of Dr. Mildred Jefferson; auto dealer Troy Duhon; all-around activist Milo Yiannopoulos . . . If I’ve missed any member of this Conservative Community Theater troupe, I apologize.

Third knot: the script. Stacey Dash (as Dr. Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School) says to the priest (Fr. James T. McHugh, played by Tom Guiry) trying to cull her into the pro-life cause: “I won’t be used for the color of my skin. I do what I do on principle. Like Don Quixote.” I had to rewind the film to make sure I heard that non sequitur correctly.

The priest then quotes Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous “First they came for the Jews . . .” epigram against political cowardice. That scene transitions into another with Ms. Dash and Joey Lawrence (as Fordham University legal scholar, Robert Byrn) in which he quotes Ben Franklin’s aphorism about the futility of giving up liberty to gain security (incongruous in the context of the film), to which Ms. Dash replies with a citation from Susan B. Anthony, and you begin to think the screenplay was cadged from Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.

Some background about the state of thinking in the U.S. in the 60s and 70s makes sense, as does exposition about how pro-life leadership coalesced. But does that have to be established with such pedantry and incongruity? This is never more so than in the leaden narration that accompanies the drama, spoken by Mr. Loeb, and that’s the fourth knot.

In more “literary” films, narration can be effective. More often it’s deployed by filmmakers unable to propel a story subtly: to show not tell. Like good teachers, good writers and directors lead audiences to conclusions of their own. Not Loeb and Allyn, whose approach to storytelling is about as subtle as the cartoon anvil that was always dropping on the head of Wile E. Coyote.

It’s a film that might have been a documentary or even a docudrama with dramatic scenes interspersed with interviews of experts or actual witnesses to the events portrayed. Roe v. Wade blurs the distinctions. It wants to be dramatic, but Mr. Loeb and Ms. Allyn are simply not up to the task, which is why narration is used to compensate for their inability to otherwise craft a compelling story.

Knot five is the premise that ratification of abortion was solely the result of a conspiracy. Without question, there was subterfuge by pro-aborts, especially – as the film suggests – in statistics about the extent of “back-alley” abortion deaths, but is it right to suggest Nathanson and Larry Lader, “father” of the “pro-choice” movement (played by Jamie Kennedy), were master manipulators who led the media and the legal establishment where they would not otherwise have gone?

There is a scene in which Henry Wade (James DuMont) scolds Jay Floyd (Andrew Vogel), who represented Texas in the case, for not emphasizing the embryological science. There was a brief in the original case heard in Dallas that did so superbly. It was in the material before SCOTUS, and I have it on good authority that at least one justice may not even have read it.

The best the two dissenters could do in the 7-2 decision was argue that the matter belonged in the States. Pro-life advocates were stunned by the outcome, which was unsuspected given that the Court had not long before sustained state restrictions and because opinion polls showed wide opposition to abortion.

So much better would have been a film just about Nathanson’s transformation, which might have begun with his elation at the Roe decision, then chronicled his transformation, and concluded with the production of his documentary, The Silent Scream and his death at peace with Christ.

Suggestion: Watch Gosnell or Unplanned instead.

Brad Miner

Brad Miner is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and a board member of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is a former Literary Editor of National Review. His most recent book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with George J. Marlin, is now on sale. His The Compleat Gentleman will be published in a third edition by Regnery Gateway on May 11, 2021.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

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.