Whistleblower: Giant BLM Flag Hung at U.S. Base in Africa

A giant Black Lives Matter (BLM) flag was allowed to be prominently displayed at the barracks of a U.S. naval installation in Africa, according to an allegation made by a military whistleblower to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

“In the barracks area of the installation, a massive BLM flag had been hung from the third story of the barracks, draping over both the second and first rows under it,” wrote the whistleblower, who had been deployed to a combat zone in Africa. “The flag was probably fifty feet long, by fifteen feet wide. In addition to this, there were many service members that were wearing BLM t-shirts that sported additional BLM slogans, doo rags, and hats, all with BLM plastered on them.

“I am opposed to the BLM movement for many reasons, and seeing a constant reminder of this group daily, was offensive and distracting to me, especially in a combat zone,” the whistleblower continued. “I also feel that it is a very politically driven and polarizing group, that has no business being advertised on a military base.”

Another whistleblower, an Hispanic 0fficer in the Marine Reserves, said he attended a training session on police brutality, white privilege, and systemic racism, and that his unit was encouraged to turn in anyone who believed that “All Lives Matter.”

Yet another whistleblower wrote, “As a member of the US military I have never seen the level of political bias as I now see in the US military.”

Our military leadership at the highest levels is now infected with the poisonous ideology of Critical Race Theory and support for the Marxist revolutionaries of Black Lives Matter. And leaders like SecDef Lloyd Austin are weaponizing that ideology throughout the ranks in order to identify, isolate, and remove political opponents and to mold a military loyal to the Democrat Party.

This is treason.


Black Lives Matter (BLM)

126 Known Connections

BLM Saint Paul Founder Exposes the “Ugly Truth” about BLM

In late May 2021, Rashard Turner — who founded BLM’s St. Paul, Minnesota chapter in 2015 — said in a video: “After a year on the inside, I learned they had little concern for rebuilding black families, and they cared even less about improving the quality of education for students in Minneapolis. That was made clear when they publicly denounced charter schools alongside the teachers union. I was an insider in Black Lives Matter. And I learned the ugly truth. The moratorium on charter schools does not support rebuilding the black family. But it does create barriers to a better education for black children. I resigned from Black Lives Matter after a year and a half. But I didn’t quit working to improve black lives and access to a great education.”

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here.

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

“One Nation Under Allah”?

Recently, a student of Justice High School in Fairfax, Virginia led the graduation ceremony in the Pledge of Allegiance. In this public school setting, when she got to the part about “one nation under God,” she said, instead, “one nation under Allah.” This was apparently without any permission from school officials.

The idea of “one nation under Allah” is a natural outgrowth of the idea of “multi-culturalism,” but is inconsistent with our history. It is true that in some Muslim-dominant nations, Christians there use the name “Allah” for God. But it’s also true that the Allah of the Qu’ran is different than the God of the Bible. Presumably the student used the opportunity to tweak the noses of those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition of America as “one nation under God.”

“One nation under God” allows the Muslim, the Buddhist, the atheist to practice what they wish.

“One nation under Allah” restricts freedom of those who disagree—even fellow Muslims of a slightly different stripe.

The idea of multi-culturalism may sound good to the naïve. While we can learn something from virtually every culture, to say that all cultures are the same is ignorant. They are not.

In places where the worship of Allah is compulsory, there is little room to disagree. Even many Muslims find restrictions under strict Islam troubling. There are many Iranians and Pakistanis and Afghanis lining up to try and live in America. But we don’t have a lot of Americans lining up to go live in Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Here’s what Rabbi Daniel Lapin once told me in a television interview for D. James Kennedy Ministries video, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

America shines like a beacon because America is “one nation under God.”

Although the secularist denies it and gnashes his teeth at the idea that the Christian God had anything to do with the founding of America, the evidence abounds in the actual documents of America’s settling and founding eras, e.g., as found in The Annals of America (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976) or the Avalon Project (on-line) of Yale University.

In their own words:

  • The Pilgrims came “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” (Mayflower Compact, 1620).
  • The Puritan founder of Boston, Rev. John Winthrop, said (quoting Jesus), “For we must consider that we shall be like a City upon a hill; the eyes of all people are on us.” (“A Model of Christian Charity,” 1630).
  • The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), which historians believed was a direct ancestor to the Constitution, notes that the purpose of their settlement was for “the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.” This is why Connecticut is called “the Constitution state.”

And on it goes.

The Pilgrims, Puritans, and Quakers who founded British North America fled Mother England and other countries to get away from religious tyranny—in that case tyranny from professing Christians.

James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, wrote the “Memorial and Remonstrance” (1785). In this document, he notes that as Christians we must have tolerance for those who have not yet been enlightened by the Gospel of Christ.

Said Madison, “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God therefore, not to men, must an account of it be rendered.”

And thus, the founders established a nation where there would be no “establishment” of religion—nor would the free exercise of religion be squelched. This was understood for the first 150 years of American jurisprudence as meaning there would be no national church in America. In Britain, they have the Church of England. But there’s no Church of America.

But now the secularists have been imposing in effect a religious system of secular humanism. Rabbi Lapin calls them “the secular fundamentalists.” They are like the mullahs of Islam, only they seek to impose secular orthodoxy, including sexual libertinism.

And so, an “enlightened” student in America calls this country “one nation under Allah.” But that is so far from our history and is totally anathema to freedom. Only as “one nation under God,” do people, even of the Islamic faith, enjoy liberty in America.

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

Mitch McConnell Ready To Preserve The Swamp!

Mitch McConnell was just interviewed on the radio by show host Hugh Hewitt on whose show McConnell stated that a group close to him and his control, known as the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), are prepared to step in and intervene in any race that they, (read he), considers the candidate is unelectable. They would involve themselves and their millions of dollars and fight against those candidates in the primaries.

He stated for a candidate to be electable, as a Republican, they have to be able to appeal to all segments of the voters!

Really???

OK – anyone see a problem here?

I sure as heck do.

I see a scenario where a true conservative candidate, a God fearing man or woman, a real patriot, a Trump supporter, a 2nd Amendment protector, a strong law enforcement supporter, a believer in a strong military, in closed borders, ‘Put America First’ type of candidate would have the millions of dollars at this groups disposal used against them to ensure that a mainstream establishment ( read swamp ) candidate won the primary.

You know, a career type, middle of the road, swamp born and bred type candidate who will tow the centrist line and agenda. One who is interested in compromising with Socialists from the New Socialist Democrat Party. One looking for middle ground. A believer in a One World nation One who is looking for power and wealth. One who will do as they are told.

In other words more of what got us here in the first place.

I gotta say to Swampy Mitch – You are a traitor and a power hungry enemy of the people. ( Don’t cry Mitch!) You and yours do not represent me!

Let’s get one thing straight here Mitch McConnell. The majority of Republican supporters and voters, at least 75,000,000 strong, see President Donald J Trump as true leader of the GOP.

Not you Mitchy or the other slime balls screwing up our Constitutional Republic and attacking we, the people.

If President Donald J Trump does not endorse them they will be unelectable. We will not vote for any more career type, wishy washy politicians who are RINOs.

Period.

How can I say that the above scenarios will be the scenario of the SLF? It is an easy leap of faith for me. So far to date they have only endorsed one Republican politician. A really bad one!!

Guess who?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

That would be the B*+ch that voted to convict President Trump in his second impeachment attempt by the domestic enemies of the state. The one who has done nothing but act like a Democrat complaining and lying about Trump.

Mitch McConnell and the SLF will likely use the lure of cash to his chosen prospective candidate choices.

One thing here you may not have thought of Mitchy Boy! PACs attached and supportive of President Trump, are busy raising huge amounts of money for candidates endorsed by President Trump.

Not your choices Mitch, Trumps choices!

Mitch McConnell sees the GOP as a party filled with John McCaines, Mitt Romney’s and Lisa Murkowskis!!

We the voters, as I said 75,000,000+ strong, do not.

We all understand the importance of winning back the House and the Senate in 2022. It is imperative and our last chance to save our beloved Constitutional Republic from total annihilation by the rabid socialist dogs nipping at the heels of our freedoms, liberties, rights and the very constitution that we consider sacrosanct and the ultimate law of the land.

We have 20 seats to defend. The socialist traitors of the Democrats only 14. Three of the seats we must flip are Ga, Az and NH.

I will end here with the words of the communications director for the SLF, Jack Pandol. “As has long been SLF’s policy, we reserve the right to intervene in cases where a candidate is a clear threat to lose a seat in a general election and to protect our Republican incumbents.” NOTE THE WORDS OUR REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS.

They sure as hell do not want that profitable swamp drained. Do they?

Our job is to ensure it is – starting with Lisa Murkowski.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Biden Backward On Energy

The Biden White House is run by ideologues who do not understand the real world.

Nowhere is this more evident than on energy.

CFACT joined a coalition of nine public policy organizations to co-sign a letter detailing the egregious mistake that regressing to the “CAFE” fuel standards for vehicles would be.  Read the full letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wants to go back to the problematic Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles. The Trump Administration had previously replaced CAFE with the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule.

CAFE standards mandate unrealistic fuel efficiency requirements which force automakers to push tiny little vehicles and electric cars that are less safe or short range and not what the American driver wants or needs.

CAFE essentially gave California the power to bully the rest of the nation into its fuel efficiency rules, as the Obama Administration granted California an unlawful exemption from federal standards.

The people running Biden’s energy policy are making an even bigger mistake in their plans to factor in a radical “social cost of carbon” number to press a dishonest big green thumb down on the scales when undertaking cost-benefit analysis of their energy policies.

Not only is this “social cost” factor derived through wildly inaccurate assumptions, it ignores the tremendous social benefits which flow from affordable, abundant, domestically produced energy.

This social cost ploy is so mistaken that 12 states have filed suit against it.  CFACT is taking direct action by informing the court through a fact-filled amicus brief which debunks the mistaken assumptions behind social cost math and details the social benefits Biden’s handlers so blithely ignore.

Details and plans to follow.

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

WATCH: Hecklers Call Mike Pence ‘Traitor’ During Conference

Former Vice President Mike Pence was heckled by attendees at a conservative conference Friday, according to The Hill.

Pence was speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition summit, which allows conservative activists to “join together and lay the foundation to win the majority in the 2022 midterm elections,” according to a press release from the organization.

“It is great to be back with so many patriots dedicated to faith and freedom and the road to the majority,” Pence said before hecklers in the crowd began shouting “traitor.”

“I’m a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order, and I am honored to stand before you today,” he continued. The calls of “traitor” grew louder as Pence tried to continue his speech.

The former Vice President finished his speech as some of the hecklers were reportedly escorted out, according to The Hill.

In early June, Pence spoke at an event in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, acknowledging that he has spoken with former President Donald Trump since the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

“You know, President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office. And I don’t know if we’ll ever see eye to eye on that day. But I will always be proud of what we accomplished for the American people over the last four years,” he said, according to The Hill.

Former President Donald Trump told Fox News correspondent Mark Meredith he would “make a decision” about whether to run for the 2024 Presidential election and didn’t rule out considering Pence as his running mate.

“I was disappointed with Mike on one thing as he understands and some other people understand, but overall, I had a very good relationship with Mike, and he’s a very fine person and a fine man.  And, you know Mike and I have a good relationship, we continue to have a good — but it’s too early to be discussing running mates certainly,” Trump concluded.

COLUMN BY

ASHLEY CARNAHAN

Contributor. Follow Ashley Carnahan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Gives Updates On Potential 2024 Run, Won’t Say Whether Pence Would Be His Running Mate

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

Sometimes It Takes a Few Pogroms

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms to drive home the solution, inducing Diaspora Jews to make Aliyah as their forebears left Europe.


Merriam-Webster defines “pogrom” as “an organized massacre of helpless people – specifically such a massacre of Jews.”

According to theOxford English DictionaryOED), the word pogrom entered English from Yiddish which borrowed it from Russian. The OED gives two meanings for the word:

In Russia, Poland, and some other East European countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: an organized massacre aimed at the destruction or annihilation of a body or class of people, esp. one conducted against Jewish people.

and

An organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group.

Note that the Merriam-Webster refers to the victims being “helpless” and that might also refer, in contemporary analysis to a lack of power. Both definitions refer to the massacre being “organized”. The latter also adds that is an “officially tolerated” attack.

A pogrom then is somewhat different than a riot. For example, riots in large American cities by supporters of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, generally targeted government buildings and businesses, rather than ethnic or racial minorities. But these riots were quite successful as the rioters, particularly BLM, achieved financial and moral support that empowered Blacks vis-a-vis educational curricula and Critical Race Theory now embedded – although facing a backlash – in government, schools, and corporations.

But the riots themselves and violence as a tactic have been adopted by groups who decide to do pogroms targeting Jews, especially the haredi Jews who are readily recognized by their dress. So, we are in an era where both riots and pogroms are becoming more common. And based on the non-reaction of the Democrats in the U.S. and the law enforcement officers, the message of the utility of riots spread around the world. As long as the violence is against individuals or small groups of Jews as opposed to attacking the Jewish state and IDF, then these count as pogroms.

In the U.S. in the last year, there have been increasing numbers of attacks against Jewish owned businesses and synagogues and individual Orthodox Jews walking to or from synagogue. In Europe, there have been many attacks especially in France, where a Jewish school was violated with murder and older Orthodox women were murdered in their homes. France and Sweden show us that the more Islamists populate a country, the more murders are committed against Jew – and others also.

In Canada, in large cities like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax, there have recently been “protest” demonstrations against Israel for defending itself against Hamas missiles and some of these turned violent. In Toronto, Palestinian Arabs and their supporters have taken to organizing large protests in Jewish neighbourhoods, which seem to aim for violent confrontations.

It is one thing to have a protest at City Hall, and another to have a protest in a Jewish residential neighbourhood.Typically these protests have Jews outnumbered by about 20 to 1, probably because Jews fear violence at the hands of those more comfortable with street-fighting. They are not quite pogroms because there is little in the way of guns. However, there is evidence of police officers refusing to aid Jewish victims and instead saying that they are only in attendance to separate the parties and that they lack the manpower to really keep the peace; query whether this attitude amounts to tolerance of criminality.

Significant pogroms in the Russian Empire included the Odessa pogromsWarsaw pogrom (1881)Kishinev pogrom (1903), Kiev Pogrom (1905), and Białystok pogrom (1906). After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, several pogroms occurred amid the power struggles in Eastern Europe, including the Lwów pogrom (1918) and Kiev Pogroms (1919).

Of course the most significant pogrom in Nazi Germany was the Kristallnacht of 1938. At least 91 Jews were killed, a further thirty thousand arrested and subsequently incarcerated in concentration camps, a thousand synagogues burned, and over seven thousand Jewish businesses destroyed or damaged. Notorious pogroms of World War II included the 1941 Farhud in Iraq, the July 1941 Iași pogrom in Romania – in which over 13,200 Jews were killed – as well as the Jedwabne pogrom in German-occupied Poland.

Post-World War II pogroms included the1945 Tripoli pogrom, the 1946 Kielce pogrom and the 1947 Aleppo pogrom.

In the period before the declaration of the State of Israel, the Jews were targeted in the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed pogrom.

We now turn to the question of whether the recent disturbances and violence in Jerusalem and other “mixed” cities like Lod, Acco, and Yaffo, amount to a return of pogroms to the Jewish people, even though we now have our own state and well-trained and equipped military. But a military cannot stop the knifing of a Jewish resident by his neighbor. If Jews, who were generally of the opinion that Arab Israelis were enjoying their democratic rights, becoming more satisfied and integrated with life in Israel, now see their neighbours joining a pogrom or a lynching, Israel has yet another difficult security problem.

A number of Israeli writers have addressed this. Victor Rosenthal, who writes under the name Abu Yehudah,writes: in a piece entitled “Israel is stuck:”

“Why do I think coexistence is impossible? Because – as has been demonstrated conclusively in the last few weeks – the combination of the nature of Arab culture, combined with the all-pervasive Palestinian narrative, the well-organized and financed anti-Zionist forces, and the effective use of media, especially social media, make it so.

“Let me make it clear at the outset that I am talking about all of the Land of Israel, by which I mean all the land between the river and the sea, from the Golan to the border with Egypt. My argument is that if coexistence between Arabs and Jews is failing within the boundaries of pre-1967 Israel, then a fortiori(or kal v’homer) it cannot succeed within the larger boundaries of all the Land of Israel.”

“The narrative says that the Jews have stolen the land from the Arabs, and the state is illegitimate… It postulates a ‘Palestinian people’ that goes back centuries in the land. That is a fiction…

“In Arab culture, personal, family, tribal, and now national, honor has a very high priority. The restoration of lost honor justifies violence – indeed, if the loss was violent, the response must be also. Loyalty to the group and perseverance in search of justice are important values. Accounts must be settled, and in the ledgers of the Palestinian Arabs, much is owed to them by the Jews.” That, too, if fiction.

Rosenthal says that Meir Kahane “was right about one thing: in order for the Jewish state to continue to exist, it cannot continue to have a large Arab minority. I am certain that many Israelis agree in their hearts, but are afraid to express agreement from fear of being called “racist” or worse. But race has nothing to do with what is at bottom a national conflict, and indeed it is a profoundly unhelpful concept.”

Martin Sherman is another prolific writer grappling with the lesson of the Arab Israeli pogroms. He writes in his essay, “Et tu, Ahmad: The illusion of Arab loyalty”:

“Violent Israeli Arab “display(s) of alienation—indeed, aversion—to their own state is not confined to select elites within Arab-Israeli society. Indeed, when Arab Israelis perpetrated lethal acts of terror, they were feted as heroes by their kinfolk, who collaborated in hiding them from Israeli authorities. When two of them were eventually located and killed, they were given huge funerals, where they were enthusiastically eulogized by approving mass processions—and lauded as martyrs for Al-Aqsa for gunning down two Israeli policemen (from the Druze community) at the Temple Mount.

‘The unavoidable conclusion from this dismal record is that Israel has been enormously—and ill-advisedly—tolerant its Arab citizens, allowing blatant and barefaced displays not only of disloyalty but of equally brazen identification with Israel’s enemies—even in times of ongoing hostilities.

‘Seen in this context, the current revolt is clearly aimed at changing the very essence of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, annulling the very foundation for its establishment and transforming the rationale for its continued existence.

‘Accordingly, the situation can no longer be seen as one centering on the question of individual rights, but of collective survival—and it must be treated as such.”

Caroline Glick in her recent piece, “Facing the real cause of the long Arab war” says that after 75 years of making excuses and denying the plain fact that anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred is the root and the branch of the Arab conflict with Israel, Israelis of all walks of life and across the political spectrum need, in light of the recent Arab-Israeli pogroms, to accept that it is true that the root cause of the War is Jew-hatred..”

Says Glick: “The Palestinian war, now joined by Israel’s Arabs and supported by the ruling party in America, presents Zionism with its supreme test: Will Israel protect its Jewish national identity, or will it crumble under pressure?”

“Israel must do two things to persevere. First, it must quell the Arab-Israeli violence and confiscate all illegal weapons now in the hands of the Arabs.

“More fundamentally, after 75 years of making excuses and denying the plain fact that anti-Semitism is the root and the branch of the Arab conflict with Israel, Israelis of all walks of life and across the political spectrum need to accept this truth. As a society, we must demand that Israel’s Arab citizens and their leaders recognize the legitimacy and justice of the existence of the State of Israel. And we must not accept no for an answer any more.”

In my book, The Ideological Path to Submission… and what we can do about it (Mantua Books), I agree with the approach of Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum to distinguish between Muslims who can adjust to lives of freedom, responsibility, women’s rights, rights of other religions including Judaism and non-violence, and other Muslims, usually called Islamists who seek Jihad, conquest, a world-wide Caliphate, forced conversions, Sharia Law and violence. My book deals mainly with Islam in America, Canada and Europe, but I hold the same distinctions must apply to Islamic Israelis.

The only Muslims that should live in Israel are those non-Islamists who accept the virtue of the Jews, the Torah and that the Qur’an says that the land of Israel is for the Jews.

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms to drive home the problem and the solution alike.

The Russian and Ukrainian pogroms in the early 19th century were the determining factor for Russian Jews to depart Russia and the Ukraine for America. A lot of Jews paid with their lives so that others would understand that the time had come to leave.

My father’s cousin, upon liberation from Auschwitz, decided to go back home to Lodz Poland. He and others were met with a violent pogrom from the Poles who did not want the Jews back. After a few years, he and his new wife made Aliyah.

Pogroms against Jews in contemporary Europe and the danger that riots in America might turn into pogroms will induce Diaspora Jews to make Aliyah. But they must see an Israel that understands that Arab Israelis must not only be cleansed of guns and other weapons, but must clearly support reformist Islam and not Islamism. At a time when Muslims up 20% of Israel’s population, it is essential to adopt this paradigm about Muslim neighbours and co-workers.

The mini-pogroms that started a couple of weeks ago must make it clear to both antisemites and Jews everywhere that the best thing for all concerned is a division between modernist more liberal Islam and the Islamists, and only the former should populate Israel, and perhaps the rest of the West. Those who follow radical hegemonic Islamism might stay in one of the numerous Islamic theocracies.

Sometimes it takes a few pogroms.

©Howard Rotberg. All rights reserved.

New Harvard Data [Accidentally] Reveal How Lockdowns Crushed the Working Class While Leaving Elites Unscathed

Founding father and the second president of the United States John Adams once said that “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” What he meant was that objective, raw numbers don’t lie—and this remains true hundreds of years later.

We just got yet another example. A new data analysis from Harvard University, Brown University, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation crunches the numbers on how different levels of employment have been impacted during the pandemic to date. The findings reveal that government lockdown orders devastated workers at the bottom of the financial food chain but left the upper tier actually better off.

The analysis examined employment levels in January 2020, before the coronavirus spread widely and before lockdown orders and other restrictions on the economy were implemented. It compared them to employment figures from March 31, 2021.

The picture painted by this comparison is one of working class destruction.

Employment for lower-wage workers, defined as earning less than $27,000 annually, declined by a whopping 23.6 percent over the time period. Employment for middle-wage workers, defined as earning from $27,000 to $60,000, declined by a modest 4.5 percent. However, employment for high-wage workers, defined as earning more than $60,000, actually increased 2.4 percent over the measured time period despite the country’s economic turmoil.

The data are damning. They offer yet another reminder that government lockdowns hurt most those who could least afford it.

Some critics argue that the pandemic, not government lockdowns, are the true source of this economic duress. While there’s no doubt the virus itself played some role, government lockdowns were undoubtedly the single biggest factor. It’s pretty intuitive that ordering people not to patronize businesses and criminalizing peoples’ livelihoods would hurt the economy. This intuition is confirmed by data and studies showing as much. And don’t forget the fact that heavy lockdown states have consistently had much higher unemployment rates than states that took a more laissez-faire approach.

Others might insist that the mitigation of the spread of COVID-19 accomplished by lockdowns justifies this economic fallout. But this argument fails to account for the many peer-reviewed studies showing lockdown orders did not effectively slow the pandemic’s spread, or the painfully inconvenient fact that most COVID-19 spread occurred not in workplaces, restaurants, or gyms but at home. (Making “stay-at-home orders” seem like an astonishing mistake in hindsight.)

So, all lockdowns really seem to have accomplished is at best a mild delay in the pandemic’s trajectory in exchange for a host of lethal unintended consequences such as a mental health crisis and skyrocketing drug overdoses. And, as we now know, a highly regressive economic fallout for the working class.

Of course, Ivy League researchers almost certainly did not intend to expose the failings of big government pandemic policies when they set out to catalogue employment data. But, as Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Poll: 86% of Democrats View Critical Race Theory Favorably

According to a new YouGov poll sponsored by The Economist, 58% of Americans have an “unfavorable” view of the Marxist ideological weapon, Critical Race Theory (CRT), while a disheartening 38% view it favorably. Among Democrats, a whopping 86% embrace the idea.

The survey asked 1,500 participants if they have “a good idea of what CRT is.” The poll found 54% responded “yes,” 23% said “no,” and 23% said “not sure.” The fact that nearly half the respondents were at best unclear on the topic is disappointing, to say the least.

Those respondents who said they knew what CRT is were then asked whether they have a “favorable or unfavorable” opinion of it; 25% said “very favorable;” 13% said “somewhat favorable;” 5% said “somewhat unfavorable;” 53% said “very unfavorable;” and 4% said “don’t know.”

The favorability of CRT broken down by demographic groups:

  • White men, no college degree: 24 percent
  • White men, college degree: 34 percent
  • White women, no college degree: 23 percent
  • White women, college degree: 44 percent
  • Black: 68 percent
  • Hispanic: 42 percent
  • Republicans: 6 percent
  • Democrats: 86 percent
  • Independents: 20 percent

Among the respondents, 37% said teaching CRT is “good for America,” while 55% said “bad for America;” 8% were neutral. But CRT has the entire media-cultural complex in its corner, as well as subversives pushing it at the highest levels of the government and corporate America.


Critical Race Theory

4 Known Connections

Founded by the late Derrick Bell, critical race theory is an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. As Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color.”

To learn more about Critical Race Theory, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Parents derail hiring of toxic Critical Race Theory consultant in California school district.

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

“Biden’s” Crushing Weakness: China Flew 28 Military Aircraft Into Taiwan’s Airspace

Gird your loins. The catastrophic consequences of the Democrat-CCP election theft will bow up the world.

China Flies 28 Military Aircraft Over Taiwan Airspace

From the story: China flew 28 military aircraft into Taiwan’s air defence buffer zone on Tuesday, in its largest such incursion ever, according to Taipei officials, as Beijing continued to express anger over warnings from western countries and their allies about its military pressure on the island (Financial Times).  From the Wall Street Journal: President Biden is telling the world in Europe this week that “America is back” as the leader of global democracies. Sounds good. But China, Iran and Vladimir Putin would be more impressed if Mr. Biden wasn’t cutting America’s defense even as he rightly stresses the challenge from the world’s authoritarians (WSJ).

RELATED ARTICLE: China and Iran: Join Up the Dots The whole is much more than the sum of the parts

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 permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, 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 a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Racist Democrat Gov. Candidate Nikki Fried: Ron DeSantis Seeks ‘Race War’ With Critical Race Theory Ban

This is what desperation looks like. Nikki Fried knows that she can’t defeat Governor DeSantis on the issues. That is why she is playing the race card. A very typical tactic from the Left. When they can’t win an argument, they will more often then not accuse their opponent of racism. Here is the good news. It’s not going to work. Nikki Fried will get trounced by Governor DeSantis in Florida’s upcoming gubernatorial election. No matter how much favorable news coverage she gets from the mainstream media. That’s assuming she even wins her party’s nomination.

Nikki Fried: Ron DeSantis seeks ‘race war’ with critical race theory ban

By Florida Politics, June 14, 2021

Fried made the comments on Jacksonville radio Monday.

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried contended Monday that Gov. Ron DeSantis seeks a “race war and a cultural war.”

Fried, appearing on WJCT-FM’s “First Coast Connect,” was answering a listener question about the recently instituted Board of Education ban on teaching critical race theory and the 1619 Project, when she made the comment critical of the rule change.

“This is another opportunity for the Governor to create a race war and cultural war, inside of our state,” Fried told host Melissa Ross.

“I want everybody to rest assured. First of all, critical race theory is the new bogeyman of the Republican Party. It’s not something that’s taught in the state of Florida,” Fried noted. “But we need to let our teachers do their jobs and that’s teach.”

“This Governor and this Board of Education who is, again, appointed solely by Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis and the previous Governor as well, it is not their job to tell our teachers how to — sure, there’s parameters (and) policies, but this is a time when they have overstepped once again, government stepping into the job of educating, and not the teachers.”

“This is, again, a bogeyman the Governor is pushing out there to put fear into the people’s minds,” Fried continued.

“He did it intentionally, not because there’s a worry about something like this, but to create a culture war in our state. I know people in our state are smarter than this and aren’t going to fall for this political rhetoric spewed by Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party,” Fried said.

Fried’s criticism of DeSantis drew a response Tuesday morning from the Republican Governors’ Association.

“Nikki Fried’s accusations against the Governor aren’t just desperate, they’re dangerous,” said RGA spokesperson Joanna Rodriguez. “Fried has shown repeatedly that she’s incapable of being truthful about pretty much anything. Her resorting to lies and malicious manipulations on her own liberal biography and views on critical race theory are just more of the same.”

Fried’s direct criticisms of the Board of Education’s ban on teaching critical race theory and like concepts comes after DeSantis, in the wake of the board’s decision, contended some teachers would rather teach critical race theory than reading.

“Some of the nonsense that you see in some of these places around the country, I mean, they will attack cops with this type of ideology in schools, and meanwhile, they have like 87% of the kids that aren’t even literate in some of these schools. So it shows you they’re not trying to educate; they’re trying to indoctrinate,” DeSantis said.

“We’re not going to let that come to Florida. And so I’m glad that they acted. I think it’s the right thing to do. We’re going to make sure that we’re providing access to education, but solid education, free of some of this ideology that people are trying to shove down everybody’s throats.”

Even as Democrats such as Fried object to the DeSantis agenda, donors flock to him.

DeSantis, who reported nearly $40 million cash on hand in his Friends of Ron DeSantis political committee as of the end of May, has been fundraising off the critical race theory ban for days.

“I will NOT allow this Cultural Marxism to Gain a Foothold in Florida Schools,” an email solicitation sent Thursday reads.

The new guidance for teachers certainly offers content guardrails.

American history is to be defined “largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” Teachers’ apparent efforts “to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view” will also be banned, as is “fiction or theory masquerading as facts.”

RELATED ARTICLE: NASA Starts New Critical Race Theory Initiative

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 permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, 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 a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Scientist Backing Probe Into Wuhan Lab: We Waited Because We Didn’t Want ‘To Be Associated With Trump’

Scumbag. Politicized science isn’t science at all – it’s dangerous, criminal treachery. The left has destroyed the public trust in science. Never again will we trust them.

Democrats lied, people died.

Scientist Backing Probe Into Wuhan Lab: We Waited Because We Didn’t Want ‘To Be Associated With Trump’

By Ryan Saavedra • Daily Wire • Jun 17, 2021 •

A scientist that signed onto a letter recently backing a probe in the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology admitted in an interview this week that she and other scientists did not come forward sooner to back the possibility that the pandemic originated in a lab because they did not want “to be associated with Trump.”

NBC News reports:

Chan was one of 18 scientists who published a letter in the journal Science last month calling for a more in-depth investigation into the virus’s origin that takes into account theories about both natural occurrence and laboratory spillovers. The letter helped kick-start a new round of calls to investigate the “lab leak hypothesis,” including demands from President Joe Biden and several leading scientists.

The report noted that numerous experts in the field have said that little-to-no evidence has emerged over the last year or so and that the only thing that has changed is the “context and circumstances” around the debate of the pandemic’s origins.

The report continued:

Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged. Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak…

“At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins,” Chan claimed in the interview.

Scientists rushed to downplay the possibility that the pandemic could have originated in the lab by publishing a letter in The Lancet that cast it “as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism,” Vanity Fair reported. “The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began.”

“To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been ‘nailed to the church doors,’ establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy,” the report added. “‘Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.’”

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield said this week that he believes that the pandemic originated in the lab and that those who moved to shut down the lab leak theory were “very anti-science.”

David Asher, who led the Trump administration’s investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, said in an interview last month that he had biostatisticians from the U.S. government calculate that the odds of the coronavirus evolving from nature and they estimated that it was about 1-in-13 billion.

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 permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, 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 a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Will We Ever Know the Truth About the Clintons?

Christopher Sign is dead at age 45. Sign is the journalist that exposed the supposedly unplanned meeting between Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016.

If you Google “Christopher Sign dead” you’ll get a page full of headlines and excerpts stating his death is “being investigated as a suicide.” But why would a healthy 45 year old with a young family do that? Sure, it’s possible, but it isn’t likely.

Sign, who received death threats after reporting the obvious – the ex President of the United States, husband to the Democratic candidate for president, does not randomly run across an airport runway to a plane that just happens to be parked next to his plane, in order to engage in a 20 minute discussion about the weather. Just days after the meeting, the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary.

One of Google’s top search results has the helpful excerpt “Trolls spread ‘Clinton crime syndicate’ nonsense conspiracy after ABC anchor found dead.” The problem with these attempts to debunk the conspiratorial interpretation of Sign’s death is simple: We’ve realized our news is censored and we’ve realized our establishment institutions can’t be trusted.

When you watch every major corporation and political special interest in America line up to fund a year of vandalism and thuggery, justified by lies and distortions, while demonizing the law abiding majority as inadvertent if not overt White Supremacists, you don’t trust them any more.

When you watch the entire weight of the American corporate establishment spend four years spreading obviously dishonest propaganda calculated to demonize and destroy an elected president, you don’t trust them any more.

When you watch the American medical establishment, with the full complicity of every major political and corporate institution, suppress information about early stage treatments for COVID-19, and lie about its origins, you don’t trust them any more.

When things like this happen, conspiracy theories gain credence. And the conspiracy theory that holds forth on the “Clinton crime syndicate” is robust, despite that many of the investigative voices that mushroomed into the Q Collective have been largely silenced. It wasn’t the Q digital army’s supposed militancy that got them banished from every major online platform, nor their most outlandish theories about Satan worshipers running the democratic party. It was what you read between the lines: tens of thousands of people were diligently investigating countless examples of how corrupt special interests have spread like a cancer through America’s most trusted institutions.

The light of day was intolerable. The Q warriors were crushed. Now they barely survive, relegated to alternative platforms where only the initiated dare to tread. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions remain in the online corridors where approved algorithms deliver approved pysops, and they ride the dopamine drip into quiescence.

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who if nothing else is a breath of fresh air in a dank DC swamp, tweeted what millions are thinking: “Why is it that so many who cross the Clinton Crime Syndicate end up dead?”

If you want to find out more about the so-called “Clinton Death Count,” there isn’t much to be found. Comprehensive lists that were easily found ten years ago have disappeared. One fairly comprehensive list can be found from Robert Horan, who maintains a website and a Twitter account. His list includes details about each alleged victim, but hasn’t been updated in over a year.

There are other sources, the anonymous “Clinton’s Blood Trail,” also not updated. A NewsBytes article from 2016, a Gateway Pundit article from January 2021. Or a “debunking” article published on an Ohio State University website in 2019 – be sure to read the comments, since often that’s where the most interesting information can be found.

We may never know what is really going on behind the scenes in the Clinton organization. We don’t know if the scores of deaths suffered by former associates of the Clintons are the result of foul play. What we do know, however, is that there is a coordinated attempt to suppress this material.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Revolver Alleges Federal 1/06 Provocateurs

WATCH RELATED VIDEO HERE

If you Google “Darren Beattie,” you will know the power of algorithmic character assassination. His identity, according to the arbiter of reality that controls 92 percent of worldwide online searches, is defined by the fact that he attended a “white nationalist” rally. The actual transgression, if you want to call it that, was to speak at the Mencken Club, a group that takes its name and its inspiration from H.L. Menken, and like him, revel in the writer’s iconoclastic spirit.

If you review Darren Beattie’s work, you will find him to be a journalist and political commentator whose only flaw, if you want to call it that, is elitism. He doesn’t shrink from accusing his critics of low IQs. Problem is, they usually deserve it.

More to the point, Darren Beattie has characterized a recent investigative report on the always interesting, relatively new website Revolver, which he helped found, as “the most important piece we’ve ever published.” That’s a big statement, and it might just be true.

Titled “Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge,” the article presents evidence that many of the most egregious actions committed by the mob during the January 6 capitol protest were done by provocateurs under the supervision of Federal agents.

Typically in cases where there are criminal cases, the informants are themselves indicted, then granted immunity in a plea deal in exchange for testimony. But in the cases pending against January 6 protesters, the witnesses are “unindicted co-conspirators.” Yet in many cases these individuals committed more serious crimes than the people who are sitting in jail awaiting trial.

Also noted in the lengthy report is a recap of the supposedly deadly plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The article alleges that five of the eleven key individuals involved in that plot were Federal agents, and goes on to describe how these Federal agents encouraged the would be kidnappers and provided them material support right up until their arrest. Continuing, the article identifies some of the Federal agents running what might be characterized as an entrapment operation in Michigan as the same agents transferred to Washington DC and on the scene January 6th.

The sad reality of mainstream news today is there is very little that can be trusted. Revolver, while clearly hewing to its own set of biases, offers crucial balance. This article should be read, carefully, by anyone trying to better understand what’s really going on in America’s Federal government, and who is really in charge.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DEMOCRAT EPIC FAIL: Federal Judge Lifts Biden’s Moratorium on New Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Land

The Democrats war on Americans, American businesses and American freedoms has suffered a serious setback. Harder! Faster!

Federal Judge Lifts Biden’s Moratorium on New Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Land

By: New York Post, June 17, 2021:

A Louisiana federal judge issued an order lifting President Biden’s moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal land Tuesday, ruling that the White House did not give any “rational explanation” for implementing the pause.

US District Judge Terry Doughty sided with 13 states in granting a preliminary injunction that applies nationwide. The states challenging the moratorium were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry hailed Doughty’s ruling as “a victory not only for the rule of law, but also for the thousands of workers who produce affordable energy for Americans.”

Biden implemented the moratorium on Jan. 27 as part of a series of executive orders signed during his first days in office, which included the cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline.

In his ruling, Doughty found that only Congress has the power to pause offshore oil and gas leases and ordered that plans be resumed for delayed lease sales for the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. The judge also agreed with the states’ argument that a pause on oil and gas leases would do “irreparable injury ” by depriving them of revenue and causing massive job losses.

“Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake,” Doughty wrote. “Local government funding, jobs for Plaintiff State workers, and funds for the restoration of Louisiana’s Coastline are at stake. Plaintiff States have a reliance interest in the proceeds derived from offshore and on land oil and gas lease sales.”
see also

Oil demand will exceed pre-COVID levels by end of 2022: energy agency

Doughty also agreed with the states that the administration enacted the pause without providing adequate notice or the ability to comment on the policy.

Lawyers for the Biden administration had argued that the lease sales held up by the moratorium aren’t required by law and that the secretary of the interior has broad discretion in leasing decisions.

“No existing lease has been cancelled as a result of any of the actions challenged here, and development activity from exploration through drilling and production has continued at similar levels as the preceding four years,” they argued.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the ruling.

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 permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, 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 a>— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Marriage works. Why won’t politicians back it?

Among parents in the top socio-economic groupings three quarters are married by the time their children are born.


Marriage Foundation, a UK charity, recently surveyed 2,000 young adults for Marriage Week 2021 and found that over 80 percent of 18-30s want to marry.

So why won’t our politicians back marriage?

I am the Research Director of Marriage Foundation. For at least two decades, I have been a strong advocate for marriage, not out of some sense of loyalty to outdated traditions, but because the psychology of marriage and the evidence about the effects of marriage go so strongly with the grain of human nature.

Study after study suggests that marriage works more than it doesn’t for most people, despite what many people assume about divorce rates.

The better-off know this.

Among parents in the top socio-economic groupings, for example, three quarters are married by the time their children are born. Among cabinet members in the UK, 85 percent (23 out of 27) are married for the first time. The Prime Minister is unusual in being the only person on his second or more marriage, in his case about to begin his third.

So why are our politicians and policy-makers such fans of marriage in their private lives and yet so reticent to back marriage in public policy?

If you doubt me, when did you hear a cabinet member give a speech on the importance of marriage? When did a cabinet member say that the £250 married couples allowance was not nearly incentive or reward enough? Or when did any of them comment, assuming they are even aware, that couples stand to lose up to £10,000 a year in universal credit if they marry their partner?

Maybe they won’t back marriage in public because they don’t think the public are interested.

Surveys suggest otherwise. In 2018, the Centre for Social Justice found that 93 percent of teenage young men said they expected to marry at some point. In 2008, a survey of young adults under 30 by Anastasia de Waal at Civitas found much the same.

But clearly there’s a need for an update. So we commissioned our own survey of 2,000 adults under 30, the Tik Tok generation.

What we found is that the vast majority of young adults still want to marry:

  • More than eight out of 10 young unmarried women and men want to get married. 86 percent of unmarried women and 80 percent of unmarried men under 30 in a relationship say they would “like to get married at some point” in their life, while 76 percent of women and 77 percent of men under 30 say they “expect to get married at some point”.
  • Nor does age dull the desire to marry appreciably, with slightly fewer women wanting to marry, falling from 89 percent of 18-24s to 83 percent of 25-30s, whereas slightly more men want to marry, rising from 78 percent of 18-24s to 81 percent of 25-30s.
  • Nor does social class, with 91 percent of women and 83 percent of men in the top tercile wanting to marry compared to 81 percent of women and 82 percent of men in the bottom tercile.

You can download our paper here. The verdict is clear.

Young adults overwhelmingly want to marry.

We invite government to affirm this strong desire to marry by backing the annual celebration of Marriage Week, and to motivate development of a fearless policy that promotes and distinguishes marriage in line with the evidence.

COLUMN BY

Harry Benson

Harry Benson is Research Director of the Marriage Foundation, a UK charity championing marriage for the good of society. More by Harry Benson

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