Holland: Free Speech Alarm in Rotterdam

Today there was an anti-Islam demonstration planned in Rotterdam by Pegida. The leader wanted to burn a copy of the Quran. Hundreds of young Muslims protested by shouting “Allahu Akbar” and throwing eggs at the police.

Guess what the police did. The Muslims were pleased. The leader of Pegida was arrested for “offending the religion”. The Quran was confiscated. No Muslim was arrested.

This is an attack by our police on our freedom of speech, plain and simple.

There is no law in The Netherlands that says that religion as such cannot be offended.

Police take the Koran and arrest foreman Pegida, many counter-protesters on the leg

Several hundred people demonstrated near Central Station in Rotterdam after anti-Islam movement Pegida announced that it would burn a Koran. A large group of Muslims protested on Kruisplein. On the part of Pegida there was no demonstration: foreman Edwin Wagensveld was arrested for ‘insulting the faith’ and the police took a Koran.

On a video of the arrest on Twitter it can be heard that Wagensveld taunts the prophet and insults in very rude terms. He also shouted that he “fouls Islam” and that he is “not afraid of anything”.

The counter-protesters had set off a yellow smoke bomb on the public road in front of CS Rotterdam.

Pegida announced this week that it would burn a Quran on the Stationsplein, but that is prohibited, deputy mayor Simons said earlier this week. This morning Wagensveld reported on Twitter that he was on his way to Rotterdam for the announced demonstration.

It did not happen, because the police seized a Koran before the action could well begin and arrested Wagensveld. It is unknown whether there were more activists on behalf of Pegida. The counter-protesters were many people. They cheered when it became known that the Quran had been taken.

There was also a lot of police at the station to ensure that everything runs smoothly. The Muslims shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and threw eggs and some fireworks. The demonstration had to end around 2:30 pm and around that time peace returned around Central Station.

Read the full article. 

©Matthys van Raalten. All rights reserved.

Texas Sues Google for Allegedly Collecting Biometric Data of MILLIONS of People Without Their Consent

Round-the-clock surveillance is a hallmark of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. It is no surprise that Google has been illegitimately collecting data on Americans; what is surprising is that Texas is one of only a handful of states that are fighting back. Now is the time for those who value freedom and individual rights to stand in the breach against the forces of darkness. There ought to be a wholesale rejection of Google and the rapid development of alternatives. Instead, its massive power remains largely unchallenged.

Texas Sues Google for Allegedly Collecting Biometric Data of Millions Without Consent

Reuters, October 20, 2022:

WASHINGTON (Reuters)—Texas has filed a lawsuit against Alphabet’s Google for allegedly collecting biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining proper consent, the attorney general’s office said in a statement on Thursday.

The complaint says that companies operating in Texas have been barred for more than a decade from collecting people’s faces, voices or other biometric data without advanced, informed consent.

“In blatant defiance of that law, Google has, since at least 2015, collected biometric data from innumerable Texans and used their faces and their voices to serve Google’s commercial ends,” the complaint said. “Indeed, all across the state, everyday Texans have become unwitting cash cows being milked by Google for profits.”

Google did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The collection occurred through products like Google Photos, Google Assistant, and Nest Hub Max, the statement said…

Read more.

AUTHOR

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

TRUMP SUBPOENAED: Backstabbing Liz Cheney and Jan 6 Clowns’ Latest Unconstitutional Political Farce

Today they jailed Bannon, now this. The final coup.

The law of unintended consequences is always on our side. This will insure Trump and the GOP’s triumphant win in ’24.

And while we are on the subject, why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi been called to testify as to why she repeatedly denied Trump’s requests for guardsmen?

Jan. 6 Committee Finally Subpoenas Trump for His Testimony

By: Josh Fiallo, Yahoo, October 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM·3 min read

The congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 riots officially subpoenaed former President Donald Trump on Friday to obtain his testimony under oath and documents about his role in the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The subpoena ordered Trump to appear for testimony at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 14 at 10 a.m., either in person or through a video conference. It also required him to hand over requested documents to the panel by Nov. 4, including nearly all communication he had on Jan. 6 by text, phone calls and Signal.

The committee had unanimously voted to subpoena Trump last week, spurring one big question: Would the former president with comply with the order?

Trump has indicated he’d only testify if he’s able to do so live in front of the committee, The New York Times reported last week, citing a person familiar with discussions. Even if granted his demand, some surrounding the former president don’t think he should appear in front of the committee at all.

Among the skeptics that Trump will testify is Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor, who wrote for The Daily Beast last week that the chances of Trump will testify are “dim and distant.”

In the subpoena, the committee laid out 10 separate wrongdoings it alleges Trump is responsible related to the Jan. 6 attack.

That included Trump’s well-documented pressuring of state election officials to overturn results, and his incitement of “further violence” on Jan. 6 when he condemned Vice President Mike Pence in a tweet as he watched the attack on TV.

“You were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a bloody attack on our own Capitol and on the Congress itself,” the subpoena said.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

IT WAS ALL STAGED! Pelosi Brought in Daughter, Camera Crew to US Capitol Before the Protest, Son-in-Law Was Set Up Outside to Film

Pelosi DENIED President Trump’s Request For 10k National Guard at Capitol Before Jan. 6th Protest

NUTCASE: Pelosi Screeches, “I Hope [Trump] Comes, I’m Going to Punch Him Out and I’m Going to Go to Jail and I’m Going to Be Happy”

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

California Entrepreneur Who Was Fined $1000 for Drawing Informal Maps without a License Takes Regulatory Board to Court

Ryan Crownholm’s story perfectly illustrates how occupational licensing laws stifle competition.


Ryan Crownholm is a self-described “serial entrepreneur” and the founder of a California-based business called MySitePlan.com. Founded in 2013, the business creates unofficial “site plans” for various clients using publicly available imagery. Hotels and resorts will sometimes use the plans as maps for their guests. Homeowners and contractors often use the plans in their permit applications when they are preparing to make minor changes to a property, such as building a shed or removing a tree.

Over the years, MySitePlan.com has built a strong reputation for itself, and customers are consistently impressed with the quality of the work and the short turn-around times (often within 24 hours).

“I had the first draft within 8 hours and they made changes to accommodate what the city needed. Good service!” writes one recent reviewer. “Amazing service! So incredibly quick! I will recommend this company to anyone in need of a site plan,” writes another.

Crownholm and his customers are certainly happy the business has been successful, but it seems not everyone feels this way. In December 2021, Crownholm was given a citation from the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. The order demanded that he “cease and desist from violating” the law and pay a fine of $1,000.

What was Crownholm’s crime? According to the Board, Crownholm and his company were illegally practicing land surveying without a license. In the Board’s view, “preparing site plans which depict the location of property lines, fixed works, and the geographical relationship thereto falls within the definition of land surveying,” and thus requires a license.

It’s worth noting that MySitePlan.com never claimed to create official land surveys by licensed surveyors. In fact, a banner at the top of their website plainly states, “This is not a legal survey, nor is it intended to be or replace one.”

Now, it’s tempting to say Crownholm should just get a license and move on, but it’s not that simple. Obtaining a land surveying license is an arduous process. In the state of California it requires six years of higher education and practical experience, passing four exams, and earning references from four existing licensees.

So rather than getting a license or shutting down his business, Crownholm has chosen to take the Board to court. On September 29, Crownholm joined with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit against the Board, claiming that the regulation violates his First Amendment right to free speech.

“California regulators are strangling entrepreneurs, like me, with red tape even though customers are pleased with the valuable services we provide,” Crownholm said. “Prosecuting my company hurts homeowners, contractors, landscapers, farmers, wedding venues and others who depend on my service.”

“California’s regulations go far beyond what other surveying regulators think is appropriate,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Mike Greenberg. “This is yet another example of an established industry using the government to shut down popular, innovative competition. If read literally, California’s laws could harm services everyday people use such as Uber and Google Maps. It would even criminalize drawing a makeshift map on a napkin to help a lost tourist find the way to their destination.”

The question on everyone’s mind, of course, is why? Why would this regulatory board go after an entrepreneur when he’s clearly not in the business of official land surveying?

The simplest explanation is that they’re just really eager to enforce the law to the letter. That seems to be the argument they’re going with. But if that’s the case, why don’t they also crack down on the homeowners and contractors who regularly make identical site plan drawings? As the Institute for Justice press release notes, “California’s own building departments teach [unlicensed] homeowners and contractors how to make the exact same drawings Ryan makes.”

So if litigiousness is the goal, why single out MySitePlan.com?

Perhaps they think he’s taking safety shortcuts, but that makes no sense. There’s nothing dangerous about what he’s doing. Maybe they’re concerned he’s a fraud, and that the quality of his product doesn’t match what he promises? It’s possible, but a quick glance at his glowing reviews ought to set the record straight on that. Maybe they think he’s misrepresenting himself, pretending to have a license when he really doesn’t? Again, that makes no sense. He’s very explicit on the website that he doesn’t do official land surveys.

Perhaps they just think it’s unfair that everyone else has to go through an arduous licensing process while he gets to avoid it despite doing very similar work. That would be understandable, but if it was really just about fairness, wouldn’t it make more sense to push for scrapping the burdens on everyone else rather than imposing those burdens on him?

None of these motives make much sense.

There’s another possible motive, however, and that’s the malicious one. Perhaps the regulators were simply looking to protect licensed surveyors from competition. After all, less competition means higher prices and more business for those who have jumped through the hoops. I’m sure many licensed surveyors weren’t particularly happy to see MySitePlan.com taking away potential clients.

Even assuming the absolute best of intentions, one must admit the decreased competition would be at the very least a convenient side-benefit for the established special-interests.

Oh, and did I mention that the the guy who issued the citation—Richard B. Moore, the Board’s Executive Officer—is himself a licensed land surveyor?

This isn’t the first time entrepreneurs have been impeded by these kinds of regulations. Occupational licensing requirements like this are ubiquitous, not just for doctors and engineers, but also for jobs that have little to do with safety like hair braiding.

Every industry has a similar story. Decades ago there was an accident, maybe a series of accidents, or some fraudulent practitioner. As a result, people pressured the government to “do something,” and the government responded by creating a licensing scheme.

The thinking is pretty straightforward. We make it illegal for someone to practice a trade unless they have a government-approved license, and the government only gives licenses to people who can prove they are trustworthy and capable. Ostensibly, the system protects consumers. But that’s just the official narrative.

Whether by design or by accident, licensing laws also have the effect of limiting competition, resulting in higher prices and fewer options for consumers.

I say “by design or by accident” because it isn’t always clear what the intentions were of the people who promoted these schemes. Though it’s nice to think they were all motivated by an altruistic desire to help consumers, it’s more realistic to see this as a classic “Bootlegger and Baptist” alliance—a phrase that was coined by economist Bruce Yandle in a 1983 paper in reference to the Prohibition era.

The “Baptists” are the true believers. They are motivated, in their desire for government regulation, by genuine—though often misguided—concern for consumers. The “Bootleggers” are the special-interest groups who stand to benefit should these laws pass. The strategy of the Bootlegger is simple and surprisingly effective: simply paint yourself as a Baptist and push for the regulations with altruistic arguments, even though your real goal is to hurt your competitors.

“A carefully constructed regulation can accomplish all kinds of anticompetitive goals,” Yandle wrote, “while giving the citizenry the impression that the only goal is to serve the public interest.”

In 2014, Yandle expanded on his theory in a book titled Bootleggers and Baptists that he co-authored with his grandson Adam Smith (not to be confused with the original Adam Smith). In a review of the book, economist Art Carden summarized the theory rather succinctly.

“Public policies…emerge because a moral constituency (the Baptists) and a financial constituency (the bootleggers) come together in support of the same policies,” Carden wrote.

Quoting the book, Carden notes that special interests looking to pass anti-competitive regulations often seek out “a respectable public-spirited group seeking the same result [in order to] wrap a self-interested lobbying effort in a cloak of respectability.”

Carden goes on to identify occupational licensing in particular as a good example of the Bootleggers and Baptists theory playing out in real life.

While the drawbacks of occupational licensing laws are difficult to deny, some may still have reservations about abolishing them. If we let just anyone practice these professions, wouldn’t there be a proliferation of fraudulent and dangerous practitioners? Isn’t that why these laws were needed in the first place, to protect us from the evidently disastrous results of free markets?

This is a common line of argumentation, but it’s missing some key nuances. First, it’s important to keep in mind that the mental picture many have of the pre-license market is likely distorted. The special-interest groups pushing for these laws have a strong incentive to exaggerate how bad things used to be; it would be naive to simply take them at their word.

Further, it’s important to remember that people were much poorer back when these laws were first introduced, so we shouldn’t be surprised that the general standard of living—including the quality and safety of services available on the market—was far lower than it is today. The fact that “things used to be bad” is much more a reflection of our ancestors’ relative poverty than an indictment of unregulated markets.

For another point, clearly it’s tragic when people get injured or killed because of incompetent workers, but there is always a trade-off between cost and safety. Sometimes people prefer slightly less safe options (such as workers with less training) because those options are cheaper. And if that’s a risk they want to take, we’re only making them worse-off by taking that option away.

The other thing to consider is that businesses that are downright dangerous or fraudulent get weeded out very quickly. As a business owner, if you don’t provide a reasonable level of quality and safety in your products, you’ll be out of business in no time. Since entrepreneurs know this, they have a strong incentive to avoid hiring dangerous and fraudulent workers. Economists call this the discipline of continuous dealings. This, not licensing, is the reason we can trust most of the businesses we patronize.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to ensure product safety and quality that don’t involve licensing laws. Workers can get voluntary certifications and consumers can look at reviews to help them decide who they can trust. Just think about MySitePlan.com and their reviews we saw earlier. Did you really need them to have a license to know they were a trustworthy business?

Though government licensing may seem like a good way to protect consumers, the reality is that these schemes unnecessarily restrict competition, with fewer options and higher prices being the inevitable result. In other words, they mostly end up hurting the very consumers they were supposed to help.

The best way to help consumers is to give them lots of choices and a rigorously competitive market. And the way to achieve that is not by protecting established special interests from new players. It’s by letting the Ryan Crownholms of the world compete.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

AUTHOR

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

39 Years after Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut

And the killers have still not been brought to justice.


This Sunday is the 39th anniversary of the Iranian attack on the US Marines barracks in Beirut, which took the life of 241 US Marines. It was the single largest loss of life in the history of the US Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima.

Every year on this date families gather for memorial services around the country to commemorate the lives of these first American victims of Islamic Iran’s vicious, relentless, and still unending war on America.

The attack on the US Marines followed on the heels of the April 18, 1983, attack on the US Embassy in Beirut. In my new book, And the Rest is History: Tales of Hostages, Arms Dealers, Dirty Tricks, and Spies, I call these attacks the “first blood” in Iran’s unending war on America.

For years we have known the names of the main perpetrators. Until now, only one has been brought to justice: Imad Fayez Mughniyeh.

Prior to 9/11, he was the terrorist with the most U.S. blood on his hands. A Lebanese-born Shiite Muslim who worked in Yasser Arafat’s elite Force 17, he was hired by Iran as their chief overseas terrorist once Arafat was forced out of Beirut in September 1982.

Mughniyeh was quick to prove his worth to his new masters with a series of massive car bombs in Lebanon. The first, on Nov. 11, 1982, took down the seven-story Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, Lebanon, killing 67 IDF personnel and Border Guards.

Next was the April 18, 1983, bombing of the U.S. embassy on the Beirut corniche, which I witnessed first-hand. Sixty-three people perished in that blast, including seventeen Americans. Among them were Kenneth Haas and Robert Ames, the CIA’s top spies in the Middle East. Indeed. Mugniyeh’s target was a top secret meeting of CIA station chiefs from around the region. In a single blow, Iran decapitated the Agency’s intelligence apparatus in the region.

Emboldened by these successes, Mughniyeh’s Iranian masters next instructed him to strike against Western peace-keeping troops, with the goal of driving them out of Lebanon. Shortly after 6 AM on October 23, 1983, an Iranian terrorist drove a red Dodge water truck past unarmed sentries at the U.S. Marine barracks near the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Less than ten minutes later, a second explosive-laden truck smashed into the Drakkar building several miles away, killing 63 French Marines. Mughniyeh watched both attacks with binoculars from a nearby hill while his underlings captured them on videotape.

Mughniyeh’s terrorist rap-sheet is a mile long. He went on to blow up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, and the AMIA Jewish Center in 1994. His men instructed al Qaeda bombers in the art of the simultaneous truck bombs they set off against US embassies in Africa in 1998. Later, he helped Osama bin Laden and his men plan the 9/11 attacks, and killed hundreds more Americans in Iraq following the US invasion in 2003.

Israel and the US finally brought him to justice in a joint operation in Damascus on February 12, 2008.

As effective as he was, Mughniyeh never could have carried out this killing spree without sponsors, money, and mentoring.

Among his early mentors were Ali Reza Asgari and Hussein Dehghan, who commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) contingent in Lebanon between 1982 and 1984.

Asgari defected to the United States in 2007, provided significant intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and now lives under a pseudonym thanks to US taxpayers. Dehghan rose to become Iranian regime defense minister from 2013-2017, and currently serves as an advisor to the Supreme Leader. The Trump administration sanctioned him as a “specially designated terrorist” in 2019.

But Mughniyeh’s ultimate bosses were Ahmed Vahidi, head of the Quds Force, and Mohsen Rezai, the IRGC commander. Vahidi was indicted by the US for his involved in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US servicemen; today he serves as Iranian regime interior minister, in charge of repressing pro-freedom protestors. Rezai was indicted by the government of Argentina for his role in the 1994 AMIA Jewish Center bombing, and is now an Iranian regime vice-president for economic affairs.

In January, Rezai was invited by Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega to visit Managua. Given that Rezai was the subject of an Interpol “Red Notice” for  his role in the AMIA bombings­ – an administrative procedure that requested assistance from all Interpol members in detaining and extraditing him – his government Falconjet charted a circuitous route to reach Managua, avoiding flying over the airspace of countries such as Cape Verde that had a history of detaining Iranians wanted by Interpol.

The government-owned Tehran Times called his trip in blatant violation of US sanctions and Interpol a “slap in the face” to the U.S.

In Washington, Rep. Jim Banks (R, IN) introduced a resolution in March opposing the removal of terror-designations and sanctions against Mohsen Rezai, Dehghan, and Vahidi that won just 65 co-sponsors, none of them Democrats.

Rezai was on the road again earlier this week, this time flying to Qatar to support Iranian exporters and meet with Qatari officials. Once again, the Argentinean government launched an official protest, demanding that Qatar arrest him. Both the Qatari and the US governments ignored the request (with total silence from the US embassy in Qatar and the State Department).

In the thirty-nine years since the Iranian regime drew first blood against America, the United States has yet to exact a price from the Iranian regime for its actions. We have yet to stand up to Iran’s aggressive behavior and, as I argue in my new book, this failure has encouraged Iran to continue attacking us because they see that they can do so with impunity.

The very fact of naming men such as Mohsen Rezai and Hossein Dehghan to top government positions shows the utter disdain Iran’s Islamic rulers have for the current U.S. administration. President Biden may want to be loved by the mullahs; but President Trump, with the killing of top Iranian terrorist Qassem Suleymani, showed it is much wiser to be feared.

©Kenneth R. Timmerman. All rights reserved.

Ken Timmerman’s 12th book of non-fiction, And the Rest is History: Tales of Hostages, Arms Dealers, Dirty Tricks, and Spies, was recently released by Post Hill Press. Timmerman was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 and has covered the Middle East for 40 years.

‘The Left Is Out For Blood’: Biden’s DOJ ‘Weaponizing’ Law To Arrest ‘Political Enemies,’ Former Official Says

The Biden administration is “weaponizing” the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to go after pro-life activists, an attorney who served under George W. Bush and Barack Obama told the Daily Caller.

“The left is out for blood, and Biden’s base is demanding prosecutions and the DOJ is providing them,” said Roger Severino, who served as an attorney at the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights division, the same division that enforces the FACE Act.

The Biden administration has charged at least 16 pro-life activists with a maximum of 11 years in prison for alleged violations of the act, which prohibits obstructing people seeking reproduction services. Pro-life activist Mark Houck allegedly pushed an abortion escort to the ground after a verbal confrontation. FBI agents swarmed Houck’s house and took him away at gunpoint months after the initial charges against him were dropped.

The DOJ charged the other 15 pro-lifers with allegedly obstructing entrances of abortion clinics and they face a maximum of 11 years in prison, when, under the law, first time violators of the FACE Act usually face a maximum of six months.

Past administrations have issued multi-year prison sentences for violations of the FACE Act in cases of a fatal shootingdeath threats, and damaging an abortion clinic with a Molotov cocktail, while people obstructing entrances to abortion clinics faced monetary fines and restraining orders.

Houck is being charged with the decade-long version of the FACE Act violation because the abortion escort “scraped his arm,” his attorney Peter Breen told the Daily Caller. “The charges shouldn’t apply at all, but even if they did, he’s being overcharged.”

“It’s outrageous that you would take a six-month misdemeanor … and turn it into a 10-year federal felony,” Breen added.

One of the other pro-lifers facing over a decade in prison, Paul Vaughn, never blocked the door of an abortion clinic, but was standing nearby, Breen claimed.

Severino, who served under both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2008 to 2015, said he’s “never heard of a charge being so excessive” as the 11-year maximum prison sentence and $350,000 fine put forth by the current administration for allegedly obstructing abortion clinic doors.

“This is law enforcement run amok. The FACE Act had always been enforced very rarely, because the pro-life movement is a movement of peace,” Severino said. “All of a sudden, they are inventing cases and doing sham prosecutions in an election year for purely political purposes to go after their political enemies.”

The DOJ did not respond to an inquiry from the Daily Caller asking if they have comment on whether the Biden administration has used the FACE Act more excessively than previous administrations.

The FACE Act also protects houses of worship and pro-life pregnancy centers, both of which have been firebombed across the country after the Dobbs decision. Thirty-three churches and 54 pregnancy centers have been attacked, according to the Catholic News Service. The DOJ has not prosecuted any cases of destruction against pro-life centers, Severino stressed.

The effort to arrest pro-lifers is specifically being pushed before the midterms, Department of Homeland Security official under the Trump administration, Ken Cuccinelli, told the Daily Caller.

“This has nothing to do with public safety. This is political virtue signaling to the radical-left base that has control of this administration,” Cuccinelli said.

“I think it will thoroughly backfire on them. I can’t think of a way they’ll get one more vote because they arrest these people, but I guarantee you, a lot [more] pro-lifers will stay home than might have for the midterm election,” he added.

AUTHOR

DIANA GLEBOVA

White House reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOJ Charges 11 Pro-Life Activists For Blocking Abortion Clinic, Threatens Massive Prison Sentences

Biden DOJ Trying To ‘Intimidate People Of Faith,’ Says Lawyer For Pro-Life Activist Arrested By FBI

Pro-Life Groups Sound The Alarm Over Repeated Attacks, Call Out FBI, DOJ For Not Doing Enough

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

These 6 GOP Senators Who Voted to Confirm Mayorkas Won’t Condemn Him After Revelation in False ‘Whipping’ Charge

Senate Republicans Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia; Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska; Rob Portman of Ohio; and Mitt Romney of Utah, all of whom voted to confirm President Joe Biden’s nomination of Mayorkas to lead the Department of Homeland Security now refuse to condemn his lies.

RINOs all, or in case of Collins, Murkowski, Portman, & Romney they are actually DIDs (Democrats in Disguise).

Don’t forget that Collins, Murkowski and Romney also voted to impeach POTUS Trump.

These 6 GOP Senators Who Voted to Confirm Mayorkas Won’t Condemn Him After Revelation in False ‘Whipping’ Charge

Roman Jankowski Samantha Aschieris  / 

The six Senate Republicans who voted to confirm Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas declined to criticize him after the revelation that he knew Border Patrol agents didn’t “whip” Haitian migrants before he publicly spoke as if they did.

Other members of Congress, however, are calling for Mayorkas to resign or be impeached after an explosive email was unearthed by The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

The email shows that Mayorkas’ top media spokeswoman had told him Sept. 24, 2021, that no whipping by Border Patrol agents occurred five days earlier in Del Rio, Texas. But just hours later, in a White House press briefing, Mayorkas condemned his own agents before an investigation into the facts could be conducted.

The Daily Signal on Friday emailed press contacts for Senate Republicans Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia; Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska; Rob Portman of Ohio; and Mitt Romney of Utah, all of whom voted to confirm President Joe Biden’s nomination of Mayorkas to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

The Daily Signal asked each spokesperson whether his or her senator continued to support Mayorkas, and whether the homeland security secretary should resign or be impeached and removed from office.

None responded.

Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin reported last Wednesday that Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Marsha C. Espinosa emailed Mayorkas that a photographer who took widely published photos of the incident said he didn’t see Border Patrol agents whipping illegal aliens from Haiti who crossed the Rio Grande.

“Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas must be impeached; he should have been impeached long before this for a host of reasons,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal after the news broke.

“I laid out the case for impeachment [of Mayorkas] last spring, and this latest revelation demonstrates a total disregard for his duty and those he is entrusted to lead,” Roy said.

Read more.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A September Fox News poll found a majority of Americans are ‘extremely’ concerned about inflation

Rasmussen Poll: GOP Nearly Doubles Lead on Generic Ballot

Fox News Poll: School curriculum a top election concern for parents

Border Council President Calls for Mayorkas’ Impeachment

National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd said on Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s (R-TN) Unmuted with Marsha podcast that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas committed an “impeachable offense” by lying about an incident in which border patrol agents were accused of whipping Haitian migrants.

Discussing the recent news that open-borders fanatic Mayorkas knew that reports of the iconic photo showing a Border Patrol agent “whipping” a Haitian migrant were false but ran with this information anyway, the Tennessee conservative asked Judd how this revelation made him and other border patrol agents feel.

“There’s nothing that will get my blood boiling more than this story,” Judd replied. “This was the biggest illegal immigration event in the history of the United States, there were thousands, in this particular time, there were ten thousand people that were camped out under a bridge in the United States. It literally looked like a warzone.”

Judd noted that the photographer who took the picture even stated that not one border patrol officer whipped a migrant.

“The day that he [Mayorkas] got the initial report, he actually backed the agents up, but then you had President Biden come out [with] his rhetoric and accuse these agents of a criminal act of strapping these people, which would have been a felony,” he said.

“The problem is when you lie to the American public you should be held accountable. He was Senate-confirmed and because he lied to the American public I believe he perjured himself. I personally believe that’s an impeachable offense.”


Alejandro Mayorkas

15 Known Connections

Mayorkas Likens Conservative “Extremists” to the 9/11 Terrorists

On September 11, 2022 — the 21st anniversary of the deadly 9/11 terrorist attacks — Mayorkas said on MSNBC’s The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart: “The threat landscape has evolved considerably over the last 20 years. Back when 9/11 occurred, in those years we were very focused on the foreign terrorist, the individual who sought to do a severe harm to enter the United States and and do us harm…. We are seeing an emerging threat, of course, over the last several years of the domestic violent extremist. The individual here in the United States radicalized to violence by a foreign terrorist ideology, but also an ideology of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives propagated on online platforms, even personal grievances.”

To learn more about Alejandro Mayorkas, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Abrams Draws Backlash After Saying Abortions Ease Inflation

Ocasio-Cortez Heckled at Own Town Hall: ‘AOC Has Got to Go!’

Liar Schiff Revives ‘Mailbox Hoax’ for 2022 Midterm Elections

RELATED VIDEO: Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council talked about U.S. border policy and conditions, appropriations for a U.S.-Mexico border wall in recent government-funding legislation, and more.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Afghan Migrants Say United Nations Workers Gave Them Directions To U.S. Border

Guatemala City, Guatemala — The United Nations and other aid groups are informing migrants from across the globe how to get to the United States to cross the border illegally, six migrants from Afghanistan told the Daily Caller News Foundation after they were apprehended in Guatemala.

The migrants said that before they arrived in Guatemala that aid workers provided them with maps guiding them to Mexico so that they can reach the U.S. southern border. The men were six of 16 Afghans in the detention facility for foreign migrants in Guatemala City.

“They give us a map,” one of the Afghan men said. “The map was up to Mexico. There was no United States. But they told how to cross these borders,” one of the Afghan migrants explained.

“But they told us how to go to the U.S. border,” he added.

The aid workers explained which countries have an immigration process for them and which don’t, they said. But not much else was conveyed due to a language barrier.

“Our big problem was Spanish,” another Afghan refugee said. “They didn’t understand English as well. But they try our best and they only tell us that these countries have immigration processes.”

The group paid in each country along the way to pass through to the next northern destination on their way to the U.S.

“After Nicaragua, they have an immigration process, they will get $150 from you. We went and we gave a 150 U.S. dollars for immigration and we cross another border up to Honduras. We were told that there was also an immigration process in Honduras,” the first Afghan refugee told the DCNF.

“So we went and we gave our biometrics in all process we have done. And we went move up again in another country,” he added.

They hope that they can reach the U.S., where they will be safe like a large portion of the over 2 million migrants that federal border authorities encountered at the U.S. border with Mexico in fiscal year 2022.

The United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM) didn’t immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Massive Migrant Caravan On Its Way To The US Is Forming In Guatemala

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PHILADELPHIA: Gender Clinic Trained Employees At Schools To Hide Students’ Gender Identities From Parents

This is pure evil. The country has lost its way.

The left’s war on the family, the basic building block of civilization, is part of their war on G-d. This is a culture that is embracing degeneracy, depression and death.

Eliminating parental authority paves their way to absolute control and autocracy.

The case against this horrendous surgery is a whole other matter. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.

EXCLUSIVE: Philadelphia Gender Clinic Trained Employees At School That Hides Students’ Gender Identities From Parents

by Chrissy Clark, Daily Caller, October 19, 2022:

A Philadelphia gender clinic provided training materials to public school employees in a Pennsylvania district that asks educators to use students’ preferred names and pronouns without informing parents, according to training slides and emails obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller.

A Southern Lehigh School District guidance counselor emailed the training materials from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) to several educators on Sept. 15, 2021. Several district employees attended the CHOP training off-site, and one disseminated the information to colleagues.

Approximately three weeks later, the district’s intermediate school principal sent an email to educators stating that they should not inform parents about a child’s perceived gender identity. The intermediate school’s vice principal was a direct recipient of the CHOP training materials.

The presentation obtained by the Caller called for schools to be “affirming” of a children’s perceived gender identities. Educators are encouraged to use the word “students” instead of “boys and girls” when referring to the classroom. CHOP also urged educators to include “examples of LGBTQ people in lessons,” beginning in elementary school.

CHOP recommends that elementary schoolers read books about pronouns, such as “They, She, He Easy As ABC,” and books about young boys dressing in drag, such as “Julian Is A Mermaid.” The materials also call on middle and high school classrooms to “critically examine roles and messages (now and throughout history)” and to “build allies and advocacy.”

The training goes on to encourage educators to “follow [a] child’s lead” and to “allow room for exploration” of his or her gender.

In separate training sessions provided by CHOP to school districts throughout Pennsylvania in 2020, the gender clinic told educators to keep students’ gender identities secret from parents.

“If we disclose this information without someone’s involvement, without them giving us permission, we are setting them up for a negative, potentially harmful, unsafe experience,” the training video says. “So when we get this information, we keep it private from other students, from other staff members and from parents.”…

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Teach ‘Gender Identity’ and You Could See Your Teaching License Revoked in This State

Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Voters against Transgender Procedures for Minors

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARICLES:

‘Only Two F*cking Genders’: Ocasio-Cortez Townhall Goes Completely Haywire As Protesters Shout Her Down

RINO Former RNC Chief Michael Steele Calls MAGA Republicans ‘Lice,’ ‘Fleas’ and ‘Blood-Sucking Ticks’

Democrat El Paso mayor LIES, denies he was pressured by Biden regime to avoid declaring migrant crisis an emergency

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

A National Study of Catholic Priests

Stephen P. White on a new study of how the abuse crisis, and the American Church’s response to it, affected the relationship and trust between priests and their bishops.


The crisis of clerical sexual abuse, which wracked the Church in the United States in recent years, deeply eroded confidence in the credibility of our bishops. There has been no shortage of painful reminders of the tremendous deficit of trust that has resulted from the Church’s failure to adequately address the scourge of clerical sexual abuse, particularly when it comes to episcopal accountability.

No one ought to be satisfied with the record of the Church in this country, still less complacent about the progress that has been made. But neither should anyone forget the Church’s real accomplishments, in no small part because of the efforts of our bishops.

In the twenty years since the passage of the Dallas Charter, the Church in the United States has become a global leader in protecting the young and holding abusers accountable. The safeguarding measures, reporting procedures, and review boards established under the Charter have become the standard model for anti-abuse and accountability policies around the world. The United States remains one of the only parts of the global Church with a strict policy of zero tolerance for confirmed abusers.

If there is one universally acknowledged flaw in the Dallas Charter, it’s that it failed to hold bishops accountable for their own abuse or for negligence and mishandling of abuse by those under their authority. Rome has attempted to address those shortcomings in episcopal accountability with (to put it charitably) mixed results.

But the Dallas Charter, for all the good it has accomplished, also had a downside.

For decades, there have been warning signs – anecdotal, but coming from both priests and bishops – that the policies put in place in response to the abuse crisis had caused a shift in the relationship between priests and their bishops. What had once been akin to a familial relationship had been de-personalized. Priests were worried that bishops saw them as liabilities to be managed rather than as brothers of sons. Bishops were worried that priests were less and less likely to come to them with serious personal problems or failings.

For the better part of three years, The Catholic Project (of which I am the executive director) and a team of sociologists led by Brandon Vaidyanathan (our Chair of Sociology here at Catholic University) has been working on a study to address this question: How has the abuse crisis, and the Church’s response to that crisis, affected the relationship and trust between priests and their bishops?

This week, we published the initial results of that study – the largest survey of American Catholic priests in more than fifty years.

What we learned from the study is this: American priests are thriving. They are “flourishing” in their vocations and deeply fulfilled in their ministry. Priests don’t have particularly high confidence in their bishops (though this varies greatly from diocese to diocese) and very little confidence in “the bishops” as a whole. Priests see their bishops very differently than bishops see themselves, more as administrators than fathers.

There is so much more; I won’t hazard a full summation of an already summary report. But you can read the report in its entirety on The Catholic Project website by clicking here.

There are three particular points from our study, however, that I do want to highlight.

First: 82 percent of priests regularly fear being falsely accused of abuse. Seeing that number in print is striking. Priests know that even a single, anonymous allegation can result in suspension from ministry. Priests know that even a false allegation, once made, can be very difficult to disprove definitively. And priests know that, even if such an allegation is dismissed as “not credible” and they returned to ministry, they may carry the stigma of that allegation forever. Add to this a widespread conviction among priests that bishops see the accused more as liabilities than as men who are innocent until proven guilty, and one can easily imagine how living with such fear – constantly, for decades – would take a toll.

Second: Close to 70 percent of priests support a zero-tolerance policy for abusers as set forth in the Dallas Charter, though 40 percent think it is too harsh. Our interviews added some flesh to these bones. Priests overwhelmingly, even unanimously, support the permanent removal from ministry of priests proven to have sexually abused a minor. There are no qualms among priests about zero-tolerance when it comes to such abuse. They are less sure that zero-tolerance is an appropriate policy for other sorts of impropriety, especially given a lack of clarity about what constitutes a “vulnerable adult.”

Third: Priests in religious orders show far less anxiety about what would happen after a false allegation. Religious communities are bound to take care of their own, even if a member of the community is accused of something as heinous as abusing a minor. They’ll have a roof over their head, food, and the community will provide defense counsel. This is not necessarily the case for diocesan priests.

Religious priests, especially among younger cohorts, also show lower signs of burnout than diocesan priests. Finding ways to combat isolation and strengthen community ties among diocesan priests ought to be priorities.

Our priests understand and support the reforms of the Dallas Charter, including zero-tolerance. Our priests, especially diocesan priests, are also acutely aware of just how weak the due-process protections of the Charter can be in practice. This leaves our priests feeling vulnerable, isolated, and distrustful of their bishops.

Yet through all of this, no doubt owing to grace, our priests remain deeply in love with their vocation and fulfilled in their ministry. They’re flourishing. That is no small encouragement.

The bishops are currently engaged in the process of revising the Dallas Charter, which they do every few years. My hope is that this survey will encourage them in that work – both as a reminder of the importance of the Charter, and as a spur to find ways to strengthen due-process protections for priests, even while continuing to improve protections for the vulnerable and accountability for the guilty.

You may also enjoy:

Fr. Gerald E. Murray’s Reflections n the New Sex-Abuse Norms

Russell Shaw’s The Crisis of Ecclesial Communion

AUTHOR

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is executive director of The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America and a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2022 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.

The True Craziness of the Phony Climate Change Narrative

Climate change activists have pulled all kinds of crazy stunts, recently.  Two activists were arrested for throwing tomato soup at van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’ painting in London.  They wore t-shirts that said “Just Stop Oil”.  It turns out that’s the name of a radical green group whose members are also gluing themselves to the road in Britain to stop traffic.  More green activists pulled the same stunt in France.  Back in Britain, another climate activist defaced an Aston Martin showroom with paint to protest oil production.  Another group there, Animal Rebellion, is damaging milk trucks and pouring milk out on grocery store floors to protest climate change.  They’ve also been occupying milk distribution facilities.  Turn on the TV and the craziness continues.  CBS Mornings blames the increasing number of overweight kids on climate change, saying rising temperatures keep them from playing outdoors.  Pretty crazy stuff, all around.

But here’s what’s really crazy:

It’s really crazy that people still believe polar bears are disappearing because of climate change when, in fact, they are thriving.

It’s really crazy that people still believe Arctic ice is melting down to nothing when, in truth, Arctic ice is at the highest level in a decade.

It’s really crazy people go right on believing in the phony climate change narrative when the entire thing is built on data tampering.  In 2019, a court dismissed Michael Mann’s defamation suit against a scientist who said Mann belonged in jail for falsifying his famous 1998 ‘hockey stick’ graph purportedly showing an alarming spike in global average temperatures.  The scientist defended against Mann’s defamation claim by saying his own position was true and attempted to put Mann to his proof.  But Mann wouldn’t produce his underlying research in court, so the court dismissed his case.  The scientist was not the first to show Mann’s hockey stick graph is a hoax.  The flaws were well-known by 2003.

The latest instance of data tampering has to do with Arctic sea ice.  U.N. and NASA hide the data from before 1979 to make it look on charts like Arctic sea ice is disappearing.  But 1979 was a peak year.  There may be less ice now than in 1979, but there is more than there was 15 years ago – Arctic ice is at a decade high, as I mentioned earlier.  Also, there was very little ice in the Arctic 6,000 years ago BEFORE the burning of fossil fuels, which puts the nail in the coffin of the entire phony climate change narrative.

It’s really crazy to keep believing in the climate change narrative when green groups pushing the narrative have deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party and Russia, both of which would be only too happy to watch the U.S. commit energy suicide.  Why is it climate czar John Kerry isn’t being transparent about his ties to China and radical green groups here at home?  House Republicans have told Kerry to preserve his records, because there will be investigations if the Republicans take over the House.

It’s really crazy to take the climate change narrative at face value when the true agenda – Marxist redistribution of wealth at home and abroad – is plain for all to see.  Joe Biden just pledged $11 billion a year to send to poor countries supposedly to fight climate change.  His EPA just launched an ‘Environmental Justice’ office to dispense $3 billion in federal grants created by the recent climate legislation.  The money is going to poor and minority communities.  Plus we had a fresh reminder the climate change narrative is green on the outside but communist red on the inside from the Democrat Senate candidate in Wisconsin who repeated the sentiment the world needs to “stymie capitalism” to fight climate change.  Free enterprise is the “path to destruction”, he said.  So there you have it.  Climate change is just the fig leaf to justify giving all our money away and making sure the world never accumulates its current level of wealth ever again.

Finally, it’s utterly delusional for the Democrat Biden administration to force a green energy ‘transition’ on the country when solar and wind power are not reliable, cheap, or even environmentally-friendly.  The administration’s entire vision is at the whim of commodity prices for minerals like lithium which are rising, as I’ve pointed out in previous commentary.  It also makes us completely dependent on China, which has declared itself our enemy.

A forced green energy transition is a pipedream.  We need to stop this madness now and recognize fossil fuels are both necessary and here to stay, or we will be the ones crying over spilled milk.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Climate Protesters Have ‘Blood on Their Hands’ After 2 Die

‘Green’ Activists Realize How Bad They’ve Messed Up When They Aren’t Supplied Bowls

Cost Of Public Charging an EV Is Now More Expensive Than Filling Up with Diesel–Parkers

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED TWEET:

Christian Considerations and the Death Penalty

There is a debate today over capital punishment. And that debate is taking place right now in Florida, particularly after the Parkland school shooter received a sentence of life, not death.

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who in my book has done a fantastic job keeping the Sunshine Street free, called for the death penalty in this case.

DeSantis has been seeking a change in Florida’s death penalty law, which would apply to Nicholas Cruz who took the lives of 17 students and others at his former high school in 2018 in what could be called the second “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

Javier Manjarres of “The Floridian” notes: “Governor Ron DeSantis has signaled that the Republican-led state legislature could address the 2017 death penalty law that requires a unanimous jury to find that a criminal defendant should be put to death…DeSantis called the recent jury decision to recommend Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz a life sentence instead of death, a ‘miscarriage of justice….[t]hat did not honor the victims and the families and all that they went through. I think we’ll be able to do something legislatively.’” [emphasis added]

Is the death penalty just a vestige from previous barbaric ages, as some maintain? The Constitution forbids “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Eighth Amendment (which in its original meaning never included capital punishment, which was widely considered necessary and appropriate at the time), while allowing for the death penalty (in the discussion on capital crimes) in the Fifth Amendment. Does the Bible condemn or forbid capital punishment?

Dr. D. James Kennedy, my longtime pastor, with whom I had the privilege to co-write 19 books, once said: “I believe a careful study of Scripture would clearly teach us that a faithful Christian must be involved in the political and social issues of his time….God commands men to form civil governments to stem the growth of violence through administering the death penalty (Genesis 9:6). From this flows all other powers and functions of government.”

Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, the Apostle Paul lays down the principle that the state has the legitimate authority to “bear the sword” if done in a just way: “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Dr. Kennedy has been criticized for being pro-life in opposition to abortion, while at the same time favoring the death penalty.  He said his critics are the inconsistent ones: “They are willing to kill the innocent but they are not willing to kill the guilty. That is inconsistency.”

One of the books Dr. Kennedy and I wrote was called, How Would Jesus Vote? (2008). It provided a thoughtful Christian view of the issues commonly on the ballot, including the death penalty.

As we noted, when the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill,” the more accurate translation from the Hebrew is “Thou shalt do no murder.” Meanwhile, God commands punishment of those who deliberately and wantonly take human life, if properly convicted, on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Today, there is a philosophy of crime-and-no-punishment which treats criminals as if they are patients who need treatment rather than wrongdoers who need punishment. In this view, criminals hey are ill and do what they do because they can’t help themselves.

But as we note in our book, C. S. Lewis, the great British writer, criticized this approach to criminality: “We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just, but whether it succeeds…when we only consider what will cure him…we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person…we now have…a ‘case’ to be treated in a clinic.”

To paraphrase Lewis, “When we make the issue medical rather than criminal, justice gets lost, and we treat criminals, like cases to be cured.”

But this medical approach actually depersonalizes the criminal. In this view, he has no free will of his own and is only being compelled by the mechanics of his brain. (Remember the Twinkie Defense? My client wasn’t guilty—eating too many Twinkies made him do it.)

In his 12/6/06 WND article, “Another Argument for Capital Punishment,” columnist Dennis Prager noted: “It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.”

He adds, “Killing murderers is society’s only way to teach how terrible murder is. …..A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.”

In short, if implemented justly and with impartiality, capital punishment sends a statement to society—a statement that human life does have value—so much so that we are willing to exact the ultimate penalty for heinously or callously destroying it

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

Why Are Facebook’s ‘Community Standards Overseers’ Protecting Antifa?

We recently published an article about how some change the narrative to blame others for what they are actually doing.

The article was titled Why American Fascist bullies call themselves Anti-fascists and others Fascists!

This column was used by Facebook’s community standards “overseers” as an excuse to censor us and then lock us out of our Facebook page.

The very same afternoon that we posted this article on Facebook and shared with with our friends, like Tea Party International, our account was frozen for 29-days.

Facebook is now in the business of protecting Antifa, a group that has caused riots across America using the false narrative that American patriots are Fascists. As we pointed out in our article Joseph Goebbels said, “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.”

Facebook is now censoring those who dare to expose those who accuse the other side of that of which they, themselves, are guilty.

Therefore, Facebook by censoring us is in essence “promoting violence” against Americans and their community standards censors prove it.

Sounds like Nazi Germany in 1933, doesn’t it?

Semi-Fascist Community Standards

In a September 15th, 2022 column titled Facebook’s ‘Semi-Fascist’ Community Standards we reported,

We have noticed that since Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was sworn into office on January 20th, 2021 our Facebook account has been charged with multiple, continuing restrictions for violating “community standards.”

Our account was first shut down for 24-hours (e.g. no posting, sharing, commenting, liking) on March 13th, 2021 for violating Facebook’s “community standards.”

The most recent violation of “community standards” restriction was place on our account on August 21st, 2022 for a period of thirty-nine days for posting about Covid, vaccines, MAGA and other related links.

Here is a screen shot of Facebook Restrictions placed on our account beginning on August 21st, 2022.

https://twitter.com/drrichswier/status/1570159117074944001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1570159117074944001%7Ctwgr%5E41b2a91d6ab02a3c379a87277941313df7b56946%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrrichswier.com%2F2022%2F09%2F15%2Ffacebooks-semi-fascist-community-standards%2F

Is it just a coincidence that Biden entered the White House on January 20th, 2021 and less than two months later our restrictions began?

In June of 2021 Facebook issued it’s mission statement which is to,

Bring the world closer together…give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.

When one reads this mission statement one thinks of Facebook giving power to the people. Right? It doesn’t say give power to an employee of Facebook or say give power to any government entity. Right?

QUESTION: How does restricting any individual’s power to build a community bring the world closer together?

ANSWER: It doesn’t!

QUESTION: What is standing in the way of the power of each individual to build his/her community?

ANSWER: Facebook’s Community Standards!

Facebook’s Semi-Fascist Community Standards

We analyzed this sudden change in Facebook’s “community standards” policy that began, for us, in March of 2021.

On August 26th, 2022 in a BBC News‘ titled Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship David Molloy reported,

Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.

The New York Post alleged leaked emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed the then vice-president was helping his son’s business dealings in Ukraine.

Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship.

Zuckerberg said that getting the decision wrong “sucks”.

“When we take down something that we’re not supposed to, that’s the worst,” Zuckerberg said in a rare extended media interview on the Joe Rogan podcast.

The New York Post story was released just weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, which Mr Biden won.

It claimed that a laptop, abandoned in a repair shop by Hunter Biden, contained emails which included details of Hunter introducing a Ukrainian energy tycoon to his father and arranging a meeting. There is no record on Mr Biden’s schedule that such a meeting ever took place.

Critically, it fed into long-running unproven allegations about corruption on Joe Biden’s part to ensure his son’s business success in Ukraine.

In that context, the New York Post story, based on exclusive data no other news agency had access to, was met with scepticism[sic] – and censored by social media outlets.

Zuckerberg told Rogan: “The background here is that the FBI came to us – some folks on our team – and was like ‘hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that’.

He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular – only that Facebook thought it “fit that pattern”. [Emphasis added]

On September 14, 2022 in a Federalist article titled The FBI Paid For Russian Disinformation To Frame Trump—And 7 Other Takeaways From Durham’s Latest Court Filing Margot Cleveland reported,

Our federal government paid for Russian disinformation to frame the president of the United States for colluding with Russia.

The FBI put a contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s Donald Trump smear dossier on FBI payroll as a confidential human source after investigating Igor Danchenko for allegedly spying for the Russian government, revealed Special Counsel John Durham in a court filing unsealed by a Virginia federal court yesterday. The filing contains this bombshell and seven other significant details about the Democrat-led plot to use U.S. intelligence agencies to deny Americans the results of their choice for president in 2016.

The FBI made Danchenko a confidential human source, providing him and the FBI’s use of him “national security” cover, in March 2017 and terminated that designation in October 2020, according to the court filing unsealed on Sept. 13. Danchenko is the originator of the false claim trumpeted all over global media that Donald Trump told prostitutes to pee on beds the Obamas had slept in in a Russian hotel.

The FBI had previously targeted Danchenko, Christopher Steele’s primary source, as a possible Russian agent. But after discovering Danchenko’s identity as Steele’s Sub-Source No. 1, rather than investigate whether Danchenko had been feeding Steele Russian disinformation, the FBI paid Danchenko as a CHS.

Trial for Lying to the FBI to Take Down a President

Danchenko faces trial next month on five counts of lying to the FBI related to his role as Steele’s primary sub-source. One count of the indictment concerned Danchenko’s denial during an FBI interview on June 15, 2017, of having spoken with “PR Executive-1” about any material contained in the Steele dossier. “PR Executive-1” has since been identified as the Clinton and Democratic National Committee-connected Charles Dolan, Jr. Also according to the special counsel’s office, Danchenko fed Steele at least two false claims about Trump that originated in part from Dolan.

Read more.

The Bottom Line

Here are the key points,

  1. The FBI before the 2020 presidential election tells Facebook that Hunter Biden’s laptop is misinformation. Facebook then de-platforms those, like us who said the laptop was real, because we violated FB’s community standards.
  2. Then the FBI creates a dossier that is leaked and sent to various agencies and Congress to do a witch hunt against a sitting president of the United States.
  3. Then Facebook goes along with this hoax and even de-platforms people like us who point out it is a hoax. Those who point out that this is a hoax are then de-platformed for violating FB’s community standards.
  4. Then the Biden administration, Dr. Fauci, the CDC and U.S. Department of Health begin a massive shut down of the American economy using Covid as the reason. Then Facebook begins to flag any posts on its platform that questions this national shutdown.
  5. Then the Biden administration mandates government workers, our military and every American citizen get jabbed or lose their job. Facebook goes along with this program and flags any comments that question this policy.
  6. The more and more cases of the mild to serious short and long term effects and even deaths of those taking the Covid vaccines are reported by people like us on their platform. Then FB’s community standards kick in again and people like us are de-platformed.
  7. Facebook spied on messages of Conservatives questioning 2020 election results and then sent the  messages to the FBI
  8. Then the January 6th Democrat hearings begin and not surprisingly those who call this demonstration mostly peaceful are blocked for violating FB’s community standards.
  9. Then Biden begins implementing his stop climate change at all costs, to the American taxpayer, agenda and FB’s community standards kick in to shut down those who do not believe that government or spending more of their tax dollars has any influence on the weather, let alone the global climate.

We could go on but we think you get the point. Facebook’s community standards are semi-fascist in that they protect this Democrat controlled White House and U.S. Congress at all costs.

Why? Because Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg helped steal the 2020 election by illegally funding ballot drop boxes in key states as dis covered by True the Vote and made public in their file 2000 mules.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is in fact a conspiracy to keep conservatives taking back the reigns of power in 2022 and 2024.

Facebook is part of this conspiracy and we’re calling them out.

When our time in Facebook jail ends for violating their community standards ends we will post this article on their platform. Then FB’s semi-fascist community stands will discover us and we will be back the the Facebook gulag.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Makes 6,000 MORE Arrests

Trump-Approved ‘Special Master’ Makes Big First Move in Mar-a-Lago Raid Case

RELATED VIDEOS:

Time to start all FaceBook posts with, Hi FBI!

Tucker Carlson Obtained Unlawful and Unprecedented DOJ Subpoena

Is Facebook Spying On You With The FBI?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Pressuring FBI to Fabricate ‘Extremist’ and ‘White Supremacist’ Cases, Agents Say: Report

Facebook SPIED On PRIVATE Messages of Americans Who Questioned Democrat Authoritarianism and REPORTED THEM TO FBI

Calls grow among prominent figures to create a new ‘Church Committee’ to probe FBI abuses

Voters Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Use of Zuckerberg Millions in Michigan Elections

Facebook Spied on Messages of Conservatives Questioning 2020 Election, Sent Them to FBI

Unsealed Depositions of Former Obama IRS Officials Lerner and Paz Detail Knowledge of Tea Party Targeting

 

Boston University Has Developed a ‘80% FATAL’ New Covid Mutant Strain In Lab

U.S. researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic. Why? It will kill 80% of the people it infects. What is the goal here? Who is financing this?

We are being led by the very worst of humanity.

Boston University researchers claim to have developed new, more lethal COVID strain in lab

Researchers at Boston University added a spike protein from the Omicron variant with the original Wuhan strain, which has an 80% kill rate

By Louis Casiano | Fox News

Researchers at Boston University say they have developed a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate following a series of similar experiments first thought to have started the global pandemic that began in China.

The variant, a combination of omicron and the original virus in Wuhan, killed 80% of the mice infected with it, the university said. When mice were only exposed to omicron, they experienced mild symptoms.

The research was conducted by a team of scientists from Florida and Boston at the school’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories.

They extracted the spike protein from omicron and attached it with the strain first detected at the onset of the pandemic that began in Wuhan, China. They then documented how the mice reacted to the hybrid strain.

“In…mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent,” they wrote in a research paper.

The new strain has five times more infectious virus particles than the omicron variant, researchers said.

In a statement, the university stressed that the replicated strain was less dangerous than the original strain.

“First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-COV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous,” the statement read. “Secondly, the research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), which consists of scientists as well as local community members. The Boston Public Health Commission also approved the research. Furthermore, this research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA. Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.”

COVID-19 was first detected to have come from a wet market in Wuhan, though many believe the virus was engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The World Health Organization continues to face criticism for its handling of the crisis in its early, most pivotal, days.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top NIH Official Was Unaware of Boston Lab’s New COVID Research With ‘Eighty Percent’ Kill Rate in Mice

CDC Voting to Add Failed COVID Vaccines To Childhood Immunization

French General: People who resisted COVID jabs are ‘superheroes’ who ‘embody the best of humanity’

Disney Park Charges Unvaccinated Guests More, Offers Discount to Vaccinated Guests

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