Builders and Destroyers: The Battle for America

There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. You know who you are.

Our forefathers were builders who rejected monarchy in favor of limited government and the challenge of self-rule. Our forefathers understood the difference between servitude and citizenship. They chose freedom and built a more perfect union – a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The building of the United States of America was the most successful experiment in individual freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Our forefathers built America with a Constitution articulating its secular laws, and the Ten Commandments articulating its moral laws. We are a Judeo-Christian country built on the Judeo-Christian foundation of the Ten Commandments. Let’s examine them.

Commandments 1-4 codify rules for membership in the group, they are the unifying principle of monotheism. Monotheism is at the heart of the Ten Commandments and its moral laws. Freedom and independence require self-respect, self-control, and respect for others. It is a delicate balance that requires maturity and the ability to agree to disagree.

Commandments 5-10 codify the ethos of individualism and respect for others: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Constitution and the Commandments define the balance between self and society, and between the individual and the group. There is no disagreement about the need for mutuality or respect for the individual.

Collectivism is an affront to individualism, adult mutuality, and the morality of Judeo-Christian tradition. Collectivism, whether socialism, communism, Islamism, or globalism, destroys the value of the individual and insists the value of the group takes precedence. The problem, of course, is that even in collectivism the group is made up of individuals!

The humanitarian hoax of collectivism is the destruction of the individual. Socialism is the destructive democrat party platform being marketed as altruism. Radical blue state Democrat leaders are telling the citizens of their states that anarchy, looting, robbery, rape, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by destroyers will bring equality and social justice. It is a lie. Anarchy precedes tyranny.

We still have the choice between builders and destroyers in November. We can choose between ordered liberty or the Seattle CHAZ—Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone that has become the country’s first No-Go zone. The radical Democrat destroyers support anarchy and the defunding of police departments, but without law enforcement there is only anarchy. Ask yourselves, “Do you want to live in the anarchist country of CHAZ?”

CHAZ is the predicted escalation of radical Democrat sanctuary cities and sanctuary states that protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens. In CHAZ the criminals have taken over the government. This is how violent revolutions begin. This is what the radical Democrat destroyers are offering you in November. Voter beware!

Law-abiding communities, black and white, are builders who want to live the American dream of freedom and equality rooted in American individualism articulated in the Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Law-abiding communities, black and white, reject the destroyers of the radical leftist Democrat party who foment racial divisiveness and religious divisiveness by embracing Antifa anarchists, Black Lives Matter supremacists, and Islamic sharia law supremacists who are all diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the Ten Commandments.

The Democrat hype of the coronavirus pandemic and their support of anarchist pandemonium are both tactical weapons in the radical leftist Democrat war of destruction against America and America-first President Donald J. Trump.

There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. You know who you are.

The 2020 presidential election is a battle between builders and destroyers. The outcome will determine if the dreams of our forefathers for a more perfect union of citizenship and individualism prevail, or if the radical Democrat destroyers successfully surrender our country to collectivism and servitude.

Before you cast your vote in November, remember Communist China Premier Zhou Enlai’s dismissive comment, “One of the things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory.” The radical leftist Democrat destroyers are counting on you to forget the millions of people killed in the name of collectivism.

Remember that every group is made of individuals, this means if you choose radical Democrat collectivism you are choosing to destroy your self.

Remember that the ruling elite always take care of the ruling elite. The radical Democrat political party does not represent individualism and American interests. The radical Democrat party leaders are lobbyists for their globalist financiers who fully intend to bring socialism to America in preparation for the internationalized new world order of their globalist bosses.

There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. Be a builder and reject the destroyers in November.

©All rights reserved.

See Linda’s Pundicity page and  website. Contact Linda at info@lindagoudsmit.com

Candidate Biden Suggests Police be Trained to Shoot ‘an Unarmed Person’ in the Leg

Unscripted Joe Biden, as we have all come to realize, is must-watch TV. When the presumptive Democrat Presidential candidate speaks off-the-cuff, his message regularly goes off the rails. We all anticipate Biden will say something oddconfusing, or even incomprehensible during interviews and live appearances, but we are often still shocked by what comes out of his mouth.

Even scripted Biden can be a curious misadventure.

On Monday, June 1, he upped the ante by not just saying something strange, but something potentially dangerous.

While addressing a crowd at the Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del., Biden suggested that law enforcement training could include “teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person, coming at him with a knife or something, to shoot him in the leg instead of the heart.”

First, it’s certainly odd to characterize someone as an “unarmed person” if they are “coming at (you) with a knife.”

Biden is very vocal about his desire to ban most semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps he is unaware that rifles of any kind are used less frequently in homicides than knives or blunt objects.

We have long known that Biden simply does not like guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, as he appears to not trust them to be responsible or remain law-abiding. But who knew that mistrust also applied to law enforcement? It’s certainly an odd position for someone who has been protected by armed government agents for decades.

And what about that suggestion to abandon over a century of firearms training to, when faced with a deadly threat, “coming at him…to shoot him in the leg…”?

Targeting center mass, is done to best ensure all rounds fired hit their intended target for the safety of all innocent parties involved and to stop the threat.

Sadly, candidate Biden seems to get much of his firearms education from Hollywood, where big-screen heroes regularly shoot with unachievable accuracy. If Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name character could fire his single action revolver from the hip, while on a horse, with pinpoint precision, surely those with more modern firearms and training could easily match this feat.

Much like Biden’s ideas about biometric firearms, though, life is not going to imitate art when it comes to the defensive use of firearms.

Even if it could, it still would not be advisable. The reality is that any time a gun is fired at another person, a lethal outcome is possible. A leg wound from being shot can be just as fatal as a wound to the body. A gun should therefore never be used in any circumstance other than one that would justify lethal force.

This rule reserves the use of a firearm for the most serious of encounters. Biden’s “leg shot” rule ironically could lead to more uses of firearms under the flawed assumption that the injured subject would eventually recover.

“Shooting at a person is deadly force regardless of what part of their body you aim at,” said Jason Johnson, the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon.

He went on to explain, “[Police are] trained to shoot center mass but there is no option to shoot somewhere else and have it not considered deadly force.”

Firearms training has been refined for decades, and when it comes to using lethal force to stop a violent threat, targeting the body is proven to be the best way to ensure striking the intended target, ending a lethal threat, and minimizing the chance of misses that endanger innocent third parties.

But this dangerous suggestion from Biden is nothing new, when it comes to the use of firearms. We could call it Chapter Two in his book of what not to do with a gun if you are concerned for your safety.

Chapter One involved the use of shotguns, and included two bits of advice that would likely land anyone who follows them in jail. First, in February 2013, Biden told women who wish to defend their home and loved ones from intruders to walk outside with a double barreled shotgun, and fire two blasts. He followed that up later in the same month by telling anyone who wants “to keep someone away from (their) house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

These suggestions are as preposterous, and dangerous, as telling anyone to “shoot [an attacker] in the leg.” Perhaps the best advice when it comes to defensive use of firearms would be to NEVER listen to Joe Biden.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Supreme Court Strikes Gun Ban From Ballot

Trends Don’t Lie: Americans Exercise Their Rights

RELATED VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1272627125938532352

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida Alert! Young Americans for Liberty Force Nikki Fried to Reopen Concealed Weapons License applications in Florida

Young American for Liberty declared VICTORY today after forcing Florida Agriculture Commissioner to back down. Their Press Release follows:

Victory! YAL forces Nikki Fried to reopen Concealed Weapons License applications in Florida

Tallahassee, FL — Under pressure from YAL President Cliff Maloney, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services Nikki Fried has finally reopened the Sunshine State’s online application process for concealed weapons licenses.

The controversy began on March 23, 2020, when Fried — Florida’s only statewide elected Democrat — completely froze the online application process for concealed weapons licenses, citing concerns that Floridians won’t be able to obtain fingerprinting and might become “frustrated.” Then, in May, Maloney filed suit against Fried, arguing that Fried’s preference for her own agenda over the Constitutional rights of Floridians cannot be tolerated.

“Nikki Fried tried to use COVID-19 as an opportunity to advance her authoritarian, gun-grabbing agenda. She lost and the people of Florida won,” said Maloney. “Let this victory serve as a reminder that our right to self defense is non-negotiable and that millions of law abiding gun-owners will not sit idly by while tyrants attempt to silence us.”

View the Official Press Release Here

RELATED VIDEO:

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1272627125938532352

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Tucker Carlson: ‘Black Lives Matter Believes In Force … When They Want Something, They Take It’ [Video]

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Monday that Black Lives Matter (BLM) has established a new style of politics that is based not on votes nor legality — but on force.

“Black Lives Matter doesn’t make legal arguments. They are not trying to convince you of anything. Black Lives Matter believes in force. They flood the streets with angry, young people who break things and they hurt anyone who gets in the way. When they want something, they take it,” he said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Carlson decried what he sees as the lack of leadership in the U.S. since protests, riots, looting and a city occupation have continued to be the response to the death of George Floyd.

“Our leaders are happy to talk about everything but the collapse of the centuries old civilization tumbling down around them. They have no idea how how little credibility they have. They have no sense of how irrelevant they have become. If you can’t tell the truth when the truth actually matters, then nothing you say matters. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter becomes more powerful and more popular with the public.”

Carlson said the group is gaining power and popularity because the group is winning and achieving “exactly what they want.”

He noted that BLM continues to demand that police forces be either abolished or defunded and that many American cities are obeying.

“That’s not bluffing, it’s not posturing, it’s not tweeting; that is real power,” Carlson said. “Make them mad and they will set your business on fire. Annoy them and they will occupy your downtown and declare a brand-new country,” adding that people will be afraid and will “not do anything about it.”

Carlson said the message BLM is promoting is that “force is more effective than voting. Elections change nothing. Rioting, by contrast, makes you rich and powerful.” He noted that people are rioting across America without fear of prosecution because charges are either being dropped or not laid.

“It works. Violence works. That’s the message … Until violence stops working, violence will continue.”

COLUMN BY

DAVID KRAYDEN

Ottawa bureau chief.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Protesters And Black Lives Matter Suing Trump Over Eviction From Lafayette Park

Seattle Councilmember Says She Can’t Figure Out Why ‘Looting Bothers People’ When People Are ‘Dying Every Day

Some Democrats Divided Over ‘Defunding The Police’ Movement

Trump’s Police Reform Executive Order Has 3 Main Components, Senior Administration Officials Say

Why These African American Leaders Reject the Left’s Victim Narrative

RELATED VIDEO: Terrance Wren – ‘We Need to Build From Inside the Hood.’

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

Gorsuch Helps Transform the Supreme Court Into the Supreme Legislature on LGBT Rights

In what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called one of the most “brazen abuse[s]” of the Supreme Court’s authority, a six-member majority of the court led by Justice Neil Gorsuch has rewritten Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of “sex.”

Why bother trying to pass the proposed Equality Act when you can get the justices to make law for you?

Title VII prohibits an employer from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Gorsuch—joined by the four liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts—decided that employment decisions that take any account of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entail discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.


The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>


In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was combined with two other cases, Gorsuch wrote that the straightforward application of the terms in Title VII, according to their ordinary public meaning at the time of its enactment, means that an employer violates the law when it intentionally fires an individual based in part on sex.

In a logical and legal leap, Gorsuch then argued that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, since those concepts are related to sex.

Thus, Gorsuch reasoned, it means the employer is treating individuals differently because of their sex. An employer cannot escape liability by showing that it treats men and women comparably as groups. The employer has violated the law even if it subjects all male and female homosexual and transgender employees to the same treatment.

Gorsuch dismissed as irrelevant the historical fact that none of the legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would have ever expected or contemplated that Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination on the basis of sex would apply to a man hired by a funeral home who then told his new employer, the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Home, that he planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”

That was one of the three cases before the court. That provision of the 1964 law was intended to stop the blatant employment discrimination rampant against women at that time.

The majority opinion by Gorsuch upending more than five decades of prior precedents was only 33 pages long. Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a blistering dissent in which he said that “there is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He pointed out that the majority’s claim that it is “merely enforcing the terms of the statute” is “preposterous.”

As Alito undisputedly says, “if every single American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.”

The majority tries to “pass off its decision” as just an application of the term “sex” in Title VII, claiming it is applying the textualism championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But according to Alito, that claim and the majority’s opinion “is like a pirate ship.” He added:

It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Alito said that the majority’s “arrogance” is “breathtaking,” since “there is not a shred of evidence that any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Title VII was enacted.”

Neither “sexual orientation,” nor “gender identity” appear on the list of five specified grounds for discrimination in Title VII, and the majority’s “argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong,” he wrote.  The terms “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” are “different concepts,” and neither of the two latter terms are “tied to either of the biological sexes.”

Alito is, of course, entirely correct, as one of us pointed out in a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

And, of course, Congress knew that “sex” didn’t include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Alito recalled that there have been numerous bills introduced in Congress over the past 45 years to amend the law and add those terms, but they all failed.

The majority is “usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches” of government and has taken the latest congressional bill on this topic and “issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also filed a dissenting opinion, in which he wrote that “this case boils down to one fundamental question:  Who decides?”

The issue is whether Title VII “should be expanded to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation,” he wrote, adding that responsibility “belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”

Kavanaugh lauded the “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit” of the gay and lesbian community for working “hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law.”  But, he added, under separation of powers, “it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII.”

Alito made it clear that the “updating desire to which the Court succumbs no doubt rises from humane and generous impulses.” But the “authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is.”

In their dissents, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh got it right, and the majority got it wrong. The word “sex”— still today as when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964—refers to our biological reality as male or female. It doesn’t refer to our sexual orientations or malleable gender identities as some see it.

If those terms were contained within Title VII, there would have been no need for Congress to repeatedly try to amend the law to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

In an act of judicial activism, a majority of the Supreme Court has simply legislated from the bench and amended the statute itself.

Congress has not legislated such an outcome, and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation without the consent of the governed.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.Twitter: .

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

The Destructive Coronavirus Agenda

Is there an agenda in which Covid-19 has a role?  And if so, what is that agenda?

Let’s discuss the New World Order and Covid-19.  World government, i.e., the New World Order is part and parcel of this virus.  According to Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society, “It is a steppingstone to world order.” It definitely fits, and plays into the globalist’s modus operandi.

One of the left’s standard procedures or tactics for bringing about change is by using an existing issue to manufacture crises.  If there isn’t an issue which can be used, one can always be produced that will serve the purpose.

The way this begins to play-out, the issue is brought to the surface by propaganda agents, which is currently recognized as “Fake News.” Many instances will be reported as evidence of the dire consequences people will be confronted with if remedial action is not immediately forthcoming.

At this point the solution planners, i.e., the ones who planned it all before the start, will surface with the solution to the issue. Invariably, however, the result will always be more control and less freedom for the people.

This is only one example of how the proponents of change are able to incrementally destroy our society and replace it with a system that is diametrically opposed to individual liberty and independence.

It is quite evident that the forces behind the drive for global control, or world government, for some time, have planned to use something like the coronavirus to advance their plans for establishing a Global one World Government.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci, is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, within the National Institutes of Health.  He has been closely connected to the World Health Organization (WHO) for many years, and is a good friend of the Director, Dr. Tedros Adhanom whose main advisor is none other than Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel, the man who included “death panels” in Obamacare.  In 2015, Bill Gates forecast a coming pandemic, and in 2017, Anthony Fauci predicted a pandemic for President Trump during a speech at Georgetown University, when he said, “No doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.”  (Dr. Fauci actually wrote adoring letters to Hillary Clinton after her Benghazi testimony and for years prior to that he had worked with Ted Kennedy on HIV/AIDS.)

Dr. Fauci was vaulted into prominence at the White House by Covid-19 Task Force leader, Mike Pence. He was made our infectious disease specialist in charge of our defense against the pandemic that he knew was going to happen, and quite possibly, because of the NIH’s grants to the Wuhan Lab, had been in on the planning.

The Goal is Control

The John Birch Bulletin reports that there are many examples of seminars, reports, and studies by globalists in the last few years that indicate they meant to use a pandemic to start the process of permanent control on a worldwide basis. It includes many of the people within the American government health community, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who has been seen daily at White House briefings and on the mainstream media.

The Birch bulletin stated, “Some of these studies have been in partnership with the Chinese Communists. The Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the Natural Science Foundation of China have been cooperating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health in studies connected to pandemics.”  Dr. Fauci sits on the boards of many of these American organizations.

When you are cooking up a big mulligan stew, it attracts many participants. The high-sounding titles of the many entities shield the character and proclivities of many of those involved. For example, in studies connected to pandemics, why would the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health be interested and involved in the studies of interest to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chinese Communists? The answer is revealing.

Following is a video of Bill Gates being charged with crimes against humanity in a session of the Italian Parliament. The legislator is speaking in Italian but subtitles are in English.

Bill Gates

James Corbett’s fourth installment of his series on Bill Gates examines Gates’ youth, family history, business strategies, and surprising personal connections (Jeffery Epstein for example).  Altogether, they reveal a disturbing picture of Gates’ rise to fame, fortune, and power. Of particular interest is the fact that his banker father was the head of Planned Parenthood and that the family was connected to a group of wealthy intellectuals who called themselves “Eugenicists.” They advocated so-called public-health programs to sterilize those who are considered by the elite to be unworthy of procreation.

This was the same program that was applied by Hitler to create a super race in Nazi Germany. After the fall of the Nazi regime, American eugenicists needed to distance themselves from Hitler’s sterilization program, so they changed their vocabulary. Eugenicists henceforth were called Population Control. This finally connects the dots between present vaccine design and the Gates’ life-long support of population control.

I personally believe that his population control support goes much deeper than just sterilization of the unfavorable.

According to James Corbett, Gates is generally portrayed as a kindly philanthropist who generously funds projects to improve health and fight poverty. As shown in this report however, the image and the reality are far different. The reality is that Gates, throughout his entire career, has been obsessed with the idea that the human population needs to be drastically reduced and that any means to this end is acceptable, including the creation of vaccines to sterilize people but offered to them as a defense against disease.

Vaccines

With the extreme scare tactics employed regarding Covid-19, we most likely are being set-up.  The development of a vaccine that will meet Gates’ specifications is being done. Gates saw the potential for using vaccines for yet another hidden purpose, for injecting microchips and data tattoos into the skin that, in addition to pushing pharmaceutical concoctions into the blood stream, also embed digital data that can be read by scanners to identify every person on the planet.  Just think what else can be done with this technology. Link

Thomas Jefferson rightly stated, “When the people fear the government – there is tyranny.  “When the government fears the people – there is liberty.”

We are definitely at the point at which the people fear the government. Why? Because the government, for all practical purposes has been taken over by hordes of reprobates, those who God has destined for damnation. They have no regard for the feelings, the rights, or the total well-being of anyone other than themselves, or those who support them.

Bill Gates is obsessed with the idea that the human population of the earth should be drastically reduced and any means to this end is acceptable.

Our Supreme Court supports this.  According to G. Edward Griffin, in Need to Know, attorney Alan Dershowitz says we have no constitutional protection against being forcibly vaccinated because no one has a right to spread a deadly disease.  The Court contends that the state has an obligation to use force, if necessary, to protect the lives of its citizens against the threat of a deadly disease.  Totally and completely unconstitutional to God given freedoms.

This, supposedly, is a proper position, because the defense of life is one of the few proper functions of the just state, but there is no defense of the unborn, neither is there defense of the elderly. The problem is that this position is justified only if the deadly threat is real and not staged as a political ploy, and those who are staging the hoax are the ones who will decide if it is real.  Even the polio vaccines and sugar cubes of the 60s were unnecessary…polio was on its way out, but they continued their damning vaccines … vaccines they knew were grown on monkey kidneys and gave the recipients soft tissue cancers.

Those who challenge them will be imprisoned for spreading false information that endangers public health and safety. Furthermore, in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts the court said that the threat doesn’t even need to be real if those making the decision believe it is. That part of the ruling provided a loophole big enough to drive a truck through because it allows political criminals to escape punishment simply by claiming that they had bad advice. (All this per the comments of G. Edward Griffin)

Orwell’s 1984

We have arrived in Orwell’s 1984, and from the “Robespierre Public Safety ruling during the French Revolution, in which 25,000 Frenchmen were beheaded by the guillotine for acts against the ruling.  There is no guarantee history won’t repeat itself, especially with America’s history daily being destroyed by anarchists.

I believe that during my lifetime, many of the members of the Supreme Court were people who had been turned over to a reprobate mind, otherwise they could not have ruled as they did in so many cases.

In my previous article, Part 10 of The Path to Understanding, I said that Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on the 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage case stated in his opinion that “gay people” have a fundamental right to marriage. Implicit in this statement is a veiled assertion that this right comes from God. Whether he and the other four justices who concurred in the ruling are aware of it or not, the reference to rights that are fundamental is a reference to God and His authority.

And then, there are all the pro-abortion rulings which many members of the court from 1973 to today will have to answer for. But they will have no answer – for there isn’t one – they will have to face the consequences at the Great White Throne judgment.

Many people have ridiculed scripture and the Great White Throne Judgment. They have laughed and made jokes concerning it. I can see in my mind’s eye that when they approach the throne of God, He says to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Conclusion

What I’ve written is only the tip of the iceberg relative to what we are being set-up for; the complete regimentation of society in which all individuals will act or react in unison with all others.

It is to prepare us for the future as world citizens. We will then do everything by the numbers; no one will have thoughts, or make comments that do not coincide with instructions passed down from the rulers.

Look at all the people wearing masks even after scientific reports have said that masks are completely useless and of no benefit whatever. The sheeple have complied.  It is part of the scenario to establish the national mind-set that we are in crises that all people must be involved in for us to survive, despite the fact that fewer people have perished from Covid than perish from seasonal flu.

Next up, the corruption and cover-up of dangerous vaccines where a doctor is being threatened for exposing the truth of this agenda and the Covid-19 conspiracy.  Link

©All rights reserved.

Who’s Educating the Protesters?

Protesters over the last few weeks have taught us, among other lessons, there is little room for dialogue or voicing of dissenting opinions in our body politic anymore.

In fact, many principled or simply well-meaning professionals, celebs and even business owners have been destroyed by what is now known as the “cancel culture.”

The question is, how are the protesters — by and large a group of twenty-somethings — driving the entire society?

The answer is that they are not alone. They are first and foremost being driven by their educators – public school teachers, college professors and those who have risen in the hierarchical ladder to become university administrators.

Many are extremist ideologues who (rightly) figured out that if you want to change society, you have to influence the youth.

Take the case of the prestigious Stanford University. Its dean of students, Monica Hicks, recently sent out an email to students in which she effusively quoted Assata Shakur, a fugitive on the FBI’s most-wanted terrorists list.

In 1973, Shakur (born Joanne Chesimard) and two accomplices shot two police officers, killing one “execution-style” after being pulled over for committing a bank robbery.

Shakur was arrested, convicted and sent to prison in 1977. She escaped in 1979 when other domestic terrorists broke in to rescue her. She now resides in Cuba.

Dean Hicks’s email was a friendly missive wishing students well and safety – both from COVID-19 and violence — as they engage in the current protests.

Providing them encouragement and strength of heart (she herself was planning to “shelter-in-place”), she added what she called a “loving refrain” from Shakur at the end of her letter to the students.

Quoting Shakur is particularly egregious considering that the protests are directed against police and the fact that at least two police officers have been killed by them and close to 400 wounded.

Then there was the recent case of a public school teacher in Rhode Island who was caught defacing a statue of Christopher Columbus (a felony crime).

Another case worth mentioning is that of San Francisco State University’s (SFSU) Rabab Abdulhadi.

Abdulhadi was recently given the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) Georgina M. Smith Award in recognition of “her commitment to global scholarship that builds mutual understanding … evident in the collaborations she has initiated.”

Those “collaborations” include “[cultivating] ties with Hamas-dominated universities, trivializ[ing] the kidnapping and murder of Israeli high-schoolers and endors[ing] hate speech,” according to Canary Mission, a group that monitors and exposes antisemitism in academia.

While leading a mission to “Palestine” (which was funded by SFSU), Abdulhadi also “collaborated” with Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah, both of whom are affiliated with U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.

Abdulhadi, a founding member of the antisemitic Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel also believes that Jews who favor the existence of Israel should not be allowed at the university at all.

Meanwhile, those that don’t adhere to the current cancel culture’s strict rules of what constitutes acceptable behavior have found their heads on the chopping blocks.

UCLA just launched an investigation into a lecturer for reading to his class Martin Luther King’s famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and showing a documentary that included a description of lynching. W. Ajax Peris, an Air Force veteran, used these materials while teaching a class about racism against blacks in America. The letter written by King contained the “n-word.”

After students complained that the reading of the letter and the description of lynching caused them distress, Peris was swiftly condemned by the chair of the political science department as well as two other department heads. His case has already been referred to the university’s Discrimination Prevention Office, which urged students to come forward with more complaints.

Bowing to the mob, Peris issued both written and video apologies, which did nothing to stop calls for his firing.

Another UCLA professor, Gordon Klein, is now living under police protection after he rejected a request by a black student to postpone the final exam for minority students. Klein, who has been teaching at UCLA for decades, told the student that such a policy a would not follow principles of equality (and rather, would be racist in itself).

For having such an opinion, Klein received death threats on social media, credible enough that he is now living under police protection. In the meantime, he has been removed from teaching and is being investigated by the dean for his “troubling” behavior.

UCLA apologized to Klein’s students for his “inexcusable” and “very hurtful sentiments.”

Cases like these have abounded over recent years. Yet the crescendo of the cancel culture in light of the recent protests is something we would do well not to ignore.

It’s the same culture that won’t accept New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees for standing for the national anthem or let famed Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling have an opinion about supporting a woman who lost her job for her views against males in women’s changing rooms, dorms, prisons and sports teams.

For the record, Rowling’s offending tweet read:

For those who want to maintain a society where differing opinions can be freely expressed and debated, the time to step up is now.

In addition, voting is power. Politicians should be made to be accountable by being willing to stand up for everyone’s First Amendment rights — including teachers and professors at schools and universities, the vast number of which are funded, at least in part, by taxpayer dollars.

Radicalism is the belief that there is only one way to live.
Extremism is forcing others to live by that way. 

RELATED STORIES:

The NY Times, Free Speech & the Death of Democracy

Linda Sarsour, Anti-Semitic Mob Out to Get CNN’s Jake Tapper Fired

To Bend the Knee or Not to Bend the Knee

RELATED VIDEO: Speak Truth!

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

How Arizona GOP Sen. Martha McSally Plans To Overcome Great Odds In November

She broke a kneecap hiking the highest mountain in Africa and competed in an Ironman triathlon with blood dripping down her face after sustaining an injury. So with her poll numbers being weak, even in historically Republican districts, we can still expect Republican Arizona Sen. Martha McSally will not be dissuaded easily.

President Donald Trump has reportedly told his advisers that he is concerned about her chances in the Nov. 3 special election. Yet she told the Daily Caller she’s giving it all she’s got.

In “Dare to Fly,” McSally recounts her raw experiences such as overcoming rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the loss of family and friends. She hopes the book can teach people how to convert struggles into progress. She calls this system a “misery database.”

“We all have that database of difficult things we have been through,” McSally told the Caller. “Sometimes people tap into it in order to hold themselves back. They dwell on the misery, they can’t sleep at night, it stops moving them forward. I created the term [misery database] and I talk about it in a way that strengthens you, to propel you to be able to push through hard things and do amazing things because you’ve been through hard things before.”

McSally faced setbacks on her path to becoming a fighter pilot from the very beginning of her military career. Her arm was severely injured. She was too short to be a pilot. She was dreaming of a position that didn’t even exist yet for women in the military.

Tragically, McSally faced tremendous hardship as a child. She said the death of her father Bernard McSally nearly broke her.

“Losing my dad at 12, and being very angry at God — the only way a 12-year-old can process it,” said McSally, “[then] being abused by my coach — robbing … me of my innocence while I was a hurting, vulnerable, fatherless kid. I have been to the depths of despair.”

Bernard told her on his deathbed: “Make me proud.”

McSally promised that she would. That moment, she says, is what drives her. She said she was later “able to find the peace of God and the hope of God to help me someday to get out of bed in the morning.”

“In the darkest and most difficult times in my life, I often found my last ounce of strength to persevere while thinking about my dad and his request,” she writes in “Dare to Fly.”

COLUMN BY

HANNAH GROSSMAN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Omar: ‘Can’t Reform’ Minneapolis Police Because It’s ‘Rotten To The Root’

Debate Rages On Police Reform, Role Of Police Unions In Wake Of Floyd’s Death

Joe Biden Sponsored Bill Protecting Cops Under Investigation Four Times As Senator

‘The Majority Of Them Don’t Even Know Why They’re There’: Walkaway Founder Crashes A BLM Protest

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

VIDEO: ‘The Majority Of Them Don’t Even Know Why They’re There’ — Walkaway Founder Crashes A BLM Protest

Brandon Straka, the gay former Democrat behind the #Walkaway movement, crashed a Black Lives Matter protest in Hartford, Conn. to talk to protesters.

Things got a bit heated when he spoke to some about police shooting statistics, as many of the demonstrators he spoke with didn’t actually know the numbers.

Straka told the Daily Caller that he doesn’t believe that there is systemic racism in policing.

“People’s homes have been burned down, people’s businesses have been burned down and all of this has happened over a statistical lie,” said Straka. “It’s unfortunate that we can’t have a conversation in a unified way about how we need to do better perhaps with making sure that nobody gets killed in this country without due process by the law.”

Straka went on to discuss the Walkaway campaign’s two-year anniversary and upcoming projects.

COLUMN BY

STEPHANIE HAMILL

Video columnist.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tucker Carlson Breaks Down Every Police Shooting Of Unarmed Black Suspects In 2019

Chris Wallace: Many Reporters Becoming ‘Anti-Trump Advocates’ Instead Of Calling ‘Balls And Strikes’

‘You’re Not A Journalist, You’re An Activist’: Jenna Ellis Fires Back At Brian Stelter Over Trump CNN Threat

How Underdog Arizona GOP Sen. Martha McSally Plans To Overcome Great Odds In November

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

Joe Biden Wages War On Election-Year Misinformation. Here Are 7 Times He Misinformed His Supporters

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden wants Facebook to target what he says is President Trump’s misinformation ahead of the 2020 election, but Biden has repeatedly misled his supporters on the campaign trail. 
  • Biden’s false claims include suggesting that Trump owed China millions of dollars and suggesting that Trump called the pandemic a “hoax.” Biden also falsely claimed that he was arrested in South Africa in the 1970s. 
  • Biden’s demands are coming as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faces widespread criticism for not doing enough to censor the president’s comments about protests on the platform. 

Former Vice President Joe Biden is pushing Facebook to strengthen rules regarding election-year misinformation on the platform even as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee distributes misinformation about COVID-19 and President Donald Trump.

Facebook’s inability to police political misinformation and disinformation “corrodes our democracy” and allows the president “to say anything,” Biden wrote in a letter to the Silicon Valley giant Thursday. The former vice president asked his Twitter followers to sign the letter in an attempt to pressure Facebook into acting before the November election.

“Folks, we saw in 2016 what can happen when social media platforms are left unchecked and allow disinformation to run rampant. It puts the very integrity of our elections at risk,” Biden wrote in a tweet Thursday. “We simply cannot let it happen again in 2020.”

Biden and other Democrats criticized Facebook after CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to remove or flag a Trump post in May referencing looting and “THUGS.”

Trump’s post was in reference to protests against the death of George Floyd, a black man who died May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, video of the incident showed. Zuckerberg reportedly defended the decision as an adherence to free speech principles.

Since 2016, Facebook has created an independent oversight body, wherein the company’s platform can impartially protect free speech and create an arbitration system. The body is made up of a bipartisan crew of conservative and liberal judges to help determine whether specific comments, posts or links comply with Facebook’s terms of service.

Facebook spokesman Andy Stone dismissed Biden’s open letter, telling the Daily Caller News Foundation that, “[t]here is an election coming in November and we will protect political speech, even when we strongly disagree with it.” Zuckerberg reportedly defended the decision as adhering to free speech principles.

Biden has misinformed his supporters and voters repeatedly on the campaign trail. Here are seven times the former vice president made false claims about the coronavirus pandemic, Trump, and other election-related issues.

Biden Falsely Says Trump “Owes” China Money

Biden promoted fake news from a Politico report claiming the president “owes” millions of dollars to the Bank of China.

Politico reported in an April 24 article that Trump currently “owes” millions of dollars to the Bank of China and that “the loan is due soon,” before editing the story after determining Trump did not, in fact, owe the Bank of China money.

Biden made the comment after being asked during a CBS interview on April 28 — days after Politico corrected its article – if Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China make the former VP more vulnerable.

“No, I don’t believe so at all,” Biden replied. “My son’s business dealings were not anything where everybody – what he’s talking about. Not even remotely, number one. Nothing to do with me, number two.”

He added: “And talk about business dealings – look at the business dealings the president has with China. He owes, apparently, millions of dollars to the Bank of China.”

Biden Falsely Claims He Found GOP Votes For Obamacare

Biden falsely said at a rally in December 2019 that he found Republican votes to pass the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, while he was vice president.

“We need someone with a proven ability to bring people together and do the hard work of getting legislation passed,” Biden said at a rally in Texas. “I’ve done that before … finding Republican votes for the Recovery Act, Obamacare, helping keep us from falling into a Great Depression.”

Obamacare passed on a partisan basis in the Senate, 60–39, in December 2009. Every Democrat and two independents voted for it, while every Senate Republican voted against. (RELATED: Justice Department Looks To End Obamacare Completely)

The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote in 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill, which became a flash point that ultimately made passing future bipartisan legislation nearly impossible.

Biden Campaign Falsely Suggests Trump Called Virus A “Hoax”

The vice president falsely suggested that Trump referred to the coronavirus pandemic as a “hoax” during the president’s Feb. 28 campaign rally in South Carolina. The virus originated in China and has reportedly killed 116,000 people in the United States.

Biden tweeted a video in March that misleadingly spliced together snippets of Trump saying “coronavirus” followed by, “this is their new hoax.” In reality, Trump was referring to Democrats’ political reaction to the virus, calling their criticism of his response a “hoax.”

“The video makes it seem like Trump is calling the disease itself a hoax, which he hasn’t done. The words are Trump’s, but the editing is Biden’s,” PolitiFact noted before rating the claim “false.”

Biden Falsely Said Trump Slashed The CDC’s Budget

Media fact-checkers hit Biden in February after he falsely accused the president of slashing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget.

“We increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. … He’s wiped all that out. … He cut the funding for the entire effort,” Biden said at a Feb. 26 debate.

Biden was “wrong to say the agencies have seen their money cut,” the AP noted in its fact check of Biden’s claims. Trump “proposed cuts but Congress ignored him and increased financing instead. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aren’t suffering from budget cuts that never took effect,” the fact check stated.

Biden Falsely Said Trump Dismissed WHO’s Help

The former vice president was also hit for falsely suggesting Trump rejected the World Health Organization’s attempt to provide the U.S. coronavirus tests.

“The World Health Organization offered the testing kits that they have available and to give it to us now. We refused them. We did not want to buy them,” Biden stated during the March 15 Democratic debate.

“The WHO never offered to sell test kits to the United States,” PolitiFact said in a fact check that month. (RELATED: Top WHO Official Won Election With China’s Help. Now He’s Running Interference For China On Coronavirus)

Biden Falsely Says Trump Called White Supremacists “Very Fine People”

Biden began his 2020 presidential run on a false claim that Trump called white supremacists “very fine people” after the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, three years ago.

“Very fine people?” Biden said in an April 2019 video launching his campaign for president. “With those words, the President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.”

Biden omitted important context to Trump’s comments in which the president noted in comments reacting to the rally that the “fine people” were those who were there to protest the removal of a confederate statue.

Trump went on to say: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Biden Falsely Says He Was “Arrested” In South Africa

Biden claimed on the campaign trail in February that he was arrested in the 1970s while trying to visit then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela, the former president of South Africa.

“When I said arrested, I was not able to — I was not able to move. Cops would not let me go with them [the Congressional Black Caucus],” Biden said in a CNN interview that month.

His campaign clarified the false claim on Feb. 25, saying that Biden was “separated from a congressional delegation.”

“I wasn’t arrested, I was stopped,” Biden said.

COLUMN BY

CHRIS WHITE

Tech reporter.

 RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Omar: ‘Can’t Reform’ Minneapolis Police Because It’s ‘Rotten To The Root’

Biden Asks Supporters To Help Him ‘Fix Facebook To Protect Democracy And Beat Trump’

Joe Biden Sponsored Bill Protecting Cops Under Investigation Four Times As Senator

Debate Rages On Police Reform, Role Of Police Unions In Wake Of Floyd’s Death

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.

Memories of eugenics president erased from USC campus

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Well, maybe.


The past week has seen statues and monuments whose subjects were linked to racism defaced or destroyed in the UK, UK and Australia. The memory cleansing movement also reached the University of Southern California (USC), with a slightly different twist.

The USC President, Carol Folt, swiftly removed the name and bust of her one of her predecessors, Rufus Von KleinSmid, from a prominent historic building on the campus. She was responding to years of agitation to expunge memorials to Von KleinSmid.

In his day, Von KleinSmid was a prominent figure in the United States. He began his career as a professor of education and psychology. In 1914 he became president of the University of Arizona, and moved from there to USC in 1921. He was president of USC for 25 years until 1947.

On his watch, USC experienced a huge expansion and slowly became the major university that it is today. Von KleinSmid was awarded a National Institute of Social Sciences Gold Medal in 1942 and was honoured by 20 national governments for his achievements.

Unfortunately, USC’s president was also an ardent eugenicist. He co-founded the Human Betterment Foundation in 1928, a Pasadena-based think-tank which promoted compulsory sterilization for the improvement of the species. Dr Folt described him as “an active supporter of eugenics [whose] writings on the subject are at direct odds with USC’s multicultural community and our mission of diversity and inclusion.”

There’s no doubt that Von KleinSmid’s views are not acceptable in polite company nowadays. A brief glance at a pamphlet which he wrote in 1913 yields such gems as:

We must all agree that those who, in the nature of the case, can do little else than pass on to their offsprings the defects which make themselves burdens to society, have no ethical right to parenthood. To deny them this privilege is, in the language of John Harris, “no infringement of liberty, it is a curtailment of unbridled license which is a disgrace to our civilization (?) and to our vaunted Christianity. ”

Or

The average worth of the individual to society is constantly lowered because of both the lack of productiveness among the worthy, and the fecundity of the defective. There can be no question of the outcome of the tragedy when society must depend finally upon an average ability too feeble to stand upon its own feet. It is estimated that one million of our population are incarcerated in public institutions, while three times that many, through their own incapability, pull a dead weight against society’s progress.

So there’s no point in denying that Von KleinSmid was a eugenicist, although he could argue in his defense that progressive American intellectuals before World War II shared his views — people like birth control activist Margaret Sanger, African-American rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, inventor Alexander Graham Bell, botanist Luther Burbank, President Theodore Roosevelt, Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr and others too numerous to list here.

This is just a small incident in the wider movement to purge the US of racism. But it raises a few questions. Von KleinSmid’s sentiments are echoed every day by gynaecologists advising pregnant mothers to abort their Down syndrome child. In fact, a discrete investigation at the USC Keck School of Medicine might be in order if the university wants to purge itself of eugenics.

Isn’t it better to ask how eugenics has evolved rather than to expunge it from the public record? And damnatio memoriae (the Roman habit of rubbing out inscriptions and beheading statues) seems an odd way to obliterate interest in eugenics, which actually seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

As we all have heard many times, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Interestingly, this is the best-known maxim of the Spanish-American philosopher, novelist and Harvard professor George Santayana – who was — yes, you guessed it — a eugenicist! “Some races are obviously superior to others,” he wrote in his highly praised five-volume 1906 book The Life of Reason. It figures: all that remembering stuff corrupts the soul.

So what do we do now?

Here’s a suggestion. Forget it; forget everything. Just make it up as we go along. That way, when we do end up repeating the atrocities of the past, no one will notice.

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet More by Michael Cook

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

‘Harry Potter’ author explains why trans demands are bogus

The author of the Harry Potter series has ignited a firestorm on Twitter over her ‘transphobic’ views.


Skepticism about allowing teenagers to transition to a different gender came from an unexpected source lastweek: J.K. Rowling, the author of the fabulously successful Harry Potter series. She had been provoked by a Twitterstorm over her tweet mocking a Devex headline, “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. “People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people,” she wrote. “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” She published an extraordinarly clear and informative open letter on her website, which we are republishing here.

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

What are TERFs?

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

Protecting young women

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018,  American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people.  The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

Misogyny ascendant

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

On a personal note

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity.  I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

Defying trans activists

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

This letter, originally titled “J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues“, has been republished from her website.

COLUMN BY

J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling is best-known as the author of the bestselling Harry Potter series of seven books, published between 1997 and 2007. The enduringly popular adventures of Harry, Ron and Hermione have gone on… More by J.K. Rowling

RELATED VIDEO: CBC Kids calls JK Rowling “transphobic” in show for ages 6+: Andrew Lawton with Ezra Levant

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

Rioting Democratic Cities. Chaos, or Coordinated Mayhem?

What we just witnessed in the pandemic of riots, mainly based in Democrat states and cities, is the future of the Democratic Party.


Well-meaning people took to the streets to identify with the death of an African-American at the hands of the police. His death was filmed. It was awful to watch. The people were justified in identifying with that man’s suffering. To show that they care. They called it a protest against injustice, although the cop who killed George Floyd had been arrested and charged with murder. Justice was already in the process of being served.

No matter. The numbers swelled rapidly city by city. Mainly Democratic cities. The voices grew louder, more raucous, and, not unexpectedly, the violence erupted.

First, the target was the police. Vehicles and buildings were torched. Not all were police property. Other official buildings were ignored. Were they deliberately avoided? Instead, the growing crowds became a mob, and the targets were the cities commercial districts.
Like a raging fire, the arsonists and looters destroyed commercial stores, private shops and vehicles.

To an untrained eye it seemed like anarchy, but the media called it justified anger, a protest that must be understood with sympathy.
The authorities restrained the police. Held them back and let the herd momentum take its course. Like a virus it rapidly spread its infection. This virus destroyed property and livelihoods. It was not incidental. There was motive and method behind it.

There was intent behind the mayhem.

The violent riots and apparent chaos, including arson and the wanton prolonged destruction of property and uncontrolled looting, was a symbiotic dance.
This crisis turned out to be the perfect storm.

It was hardly an accident that in every city the pattern was the same. Growing crowds looking for action, government stand down, total destruction unchallenged.
When this repeated itself city after city, day after day, you didn’t have to be a detective to see organized intent.

This was a symbiotic course of action loosely choreographed between local government, radical organizations, and the media, each with their intertwining ultimate goal. A hybrid desire for continued mayhem and economic distress to sway an angry public ahead of a vital upcoming election. The timing couldn’t have been better coming as it did at the tail end of a harmful virus lockdown.

Riots, burning everything in their way, pillaging. Smashing stores and buildings, taking whatever they could grab for free. Not caring who pays for the damage and the loss.
Intelligent people would call it robbery, arson and vandalism, but the looters see if differently.

They hate capitalism. They hate people who use their imagination, their money, and the ability to use their talents and hard work to try and build up small businesses, eventually in some cases becoming big businesses, that employ people.
They hate the whole notion of such an enterprise. They want to tear it down and take whatever they can grab.

What we saw on the streets of Democratic cities was a microcosm of Democratic big government. Take it from those that do and give it for free to those that don’t.

What we witnessed was Democratic policy crudely played out on the streets of Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, LA, and DC. This is what the radical wing of the Democratic Party is promising the looters.

The protest of racial justice based on the killing of a black man by a white cop in Minneapolis was built on a questionable premise.

True, the George Floyd killing was a tragic horror, but there is ample evidence the argument of police targeting innocent African-Americans being systemic in American society is heavily disputed by statistics and evidence.

Data provided by Statista, an independent, reliable and unbiased research center with global coverage in over 160 countries, showed that almost 50% more white people were shot by police between 2017 and 2020 than black people. 1268 to 698.

This was confirmed by Manhattan Institute fellow, Heather McDonald, who testified before a US Congressional Committee that an “epidemic of racially biased police shootings against black men” is false.

On the contrary, she said, “if there is a bias in police shootings, it is against white civilians,” quoting from a report by the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

The authors of that research were the universities of Maryland and Michigan, not exactly Republican strongholds.

Black radio host, Larry Elder, said, “It is not true that police go about mowing down black people.”

He quoted the CDC report that, in the last 45 years in America, killings of blacks by police have decreased by 75%, and in 2019 nine unarmed black people were killed by police as opposed to 19 unarmed white people.

“You don’t know the names of white people killed by the police,” he said, “because it happens all the time.”

The fulcrum of the current wave of disorder was the horrible killing of George Lloyd. Thousands took to the streets across America to protest this outrage. But no one took to the streets when a colored officer shot an innocent white woman to death outside her home in Minneapolis.

In 2017, officer Mohamed Noor shot and killed female Justine Damond outside her home. She was totally innocent. Zero protests on behalf of the victim, or women killed by cops.

In the end, the bad cop received a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence.

There was a short-term campaign, but not on behalf of Justine. It was an attempt to get the killer cop released from jail by angry protests including the slogan, “Free Mohamed Noor!”

Justine’s family won a $20 million law suit against the city, which will probably reflect the level of justice that Lloyd’s family will receive.

The important point here is that the city and the cop were found guilty of negligence and homicide. Not the President, as anti-Trump haters and the media projected recently over the Lloyd incident.

It was clearly a Democratic screw up as the Damond family statement spelt out after Lloyd’s murder, that Minneapolis learned nothing since Justine’s murder and had “not made adequate changes to their practices and training as we told they would after Justine’s murder.”

In other words, the Lloyd murder was a continuation of this Democratic city’s systemic failure, not a global race issue, and in no way connected to the President.

So what is going on, even beyond Minneapolis?

It had nothing to do with George Lloyd. The mob, and their organizers, did not listen to Lloyd’s family imploring them not to dishonor the memory of their dead brother and son by their violence and anarchy.

George Lloyd became a hashtag to hang a political street campaign. Just like #MeToo, #GeorgeLloyd carried a bias.

Floyd today is a forgotten man.

It has nothing to do with the victim. It has everything to do with overturning a Trump Republican presidency.

It was a Democrat that said “never like a crisis go to waste.”? It has become a party policy.

It includes the deliberate destruction of the economy. It is the Cloward-Piven strategy of community negative activism to change the face of government.

The Democratic Party is powered at local level by radical elements financed by wealthy non-elected manipulators. The agenda is to take power locally, at state level, with the ultimate goal of usurping national power by fair means or foul, structured in a way that can never be reversed.

This role of state and city governance is to give the people what the powerful think they need. They fill their local councils with activists, their court benches with liberal judges that pervert constitutional law. They fill their towns with illegal immigrants and offer them freebies to keep them voting for them. They are working hard to restructure a voting system that will allow them to defraud the system and ride them into power.

At national level, the leading Democrat candidates all declared they would overspend. Just vote Democrat and get free education, free everything from the cradle to the grave, including abortions whenever you want, even after birth. Driving licenses and voting rights for illegal immigrants. Free bail-out for criminals awaiting trial, and no jail sentence for most. Those arrested for violent crimes and destruction during the riots know they have nothing to fear in Democratic states.

Is it any wonder that mayors and governors ordered their police forces to stand down and let the rioters rampage through their commercial districts? It was an unwritten, unspoken, cooperative venture with the hard left activist wings of the Democrat Party.
The Democrats have replaced law and order with no law and disorder. And it seems to be working for them.

And those economically damaged by the dwindling work opportunities as a result of both their virus lockdown policies and the widespread destruction of protest, will be given unemployment money higher than the minimum wage. So why work? Just keep voting Democrat.

It’s an appealing message for millions of losers. It’s message for troublesome people looking for power. Like the anarchists, the Marxists, the Communists. Like the radical bullyboys of Antifa and BlackLivesMatter who know how to manipulate a mass protest and direct the masses into action, negative action, like burning other people’s buildings and taking other people’s stuff in the name of protest.

Today’s riots will eventually die down, but which party will the looters and destroyers attach themselves to in their search for more free stuff? Take a guess.

It is worse than a virus.

This is a cancer that is metastasizing in America. This cancer has attached itself to the body politics of the Democratic Party.

This cancer feeds off the soft tissue and organs of a party that doesn’t yet feel the pain. The Democrat body welcomes them, feeds them, encourages them.

They don’t yet understand that this cancer is going to destroy them, if it doesn’t destroy America first.

Democrats think need this cancer in their obsessive quest for power. A fateful November is on the horizon. They think they can control the cancer, but the cancer is controlling them.

Post-election, win or lose, old Democratic tissues will be replaced by stronger more radical tumors that will attach themselves to important organs enveloping and destroying the body that feeds it –democratic liberal progressive America.

The pain felt in Minneapolis, Los Angeles. San Francisco, Detroit, New York, the soft underbelly of “progressive” America, will not be cured by a November Democratic victory.

And even if they lose 2020, the radical cancer will continue to spread within the Democratic body and throughout America hoping to emerge massively victorious come 2024.

Let Democrats not fool themselves. This is not liberalism. This is not progressivism. This is not even Socialism. It is certainly not Americanism. This is Venezuela, Cuba, played out on a larger stage.

It is intolerant and violent leftist fascism. It is the un-American heart of the Democratic Party. It is the de-structuring of America. It began in the Obama-Biden era. Today’s events are a continuation of their Baltimore and Ferguson legacy that elected weak incompetent leaders and pandered to the violent.
Conditions deteriorated rapidly in Obama-Biden inner cities despite their charismatic words that charmed and fooled the masses.

We see today the Saul Alinsky doctrine of Rules for Radicals, the strategy of local persuasion to a momentary cause while disguising the ultimate goal, the collapse of the economy by using a crisis to press home a political agenda, including publicly visible disruption and destruction to attract attention and drive willing hands to the cause of regime change.

This is not democracy. It is the law of the jungle, which is no law at all.

A compliant media spreads the lies and misrepresents what was going on.

“They don’t know what to do with that emotion, so they respond by lashing out. Do you see all this damage here? Acting out gets attention,” says CNN, koshering the violence, arson, and ruin of local communities. As if thousands of looters, rushing in and out of Apple, Target, and other destroyed stores, with trolleys full of stolen goods, were doing this to get attention.

Speaking of CNN, another propagandist is Don Lemon. “Open your eyes America! We are teetering on a dictatorship,” after the President offered the National Guard to governors to restore law and order to America’s major cities.

Let me advise Mr. Lemon that America is teetering on the brink of anarchy, not dictatorship, due to lack of effective action by the authorities who are allowing their cities to burn to the ground.

The only question that requires answers is this is due to incompetence, or is it deliberate?

Why are piles of bricks mysteriously deposited at the roadside of forthcoming protests where there is no construction going on?
Why were bottles found with explosive additives down alleyways close to protest routes?

An Illinois man was arrested handing out explosives at a Minneapolis protest rally.

Baltimore, Ferguson, Detroit haven’t recovered, a decade after the Obama riots. These neighborhoods are a metaphor for Democratic America.

The Ferguson effect is seen all across America today where the rioters, looters and arsonists are given the freedom of the city in the name of Black Lives Matter. Thus began the downward spiral of decency by liberal Democrats.

Who in their right mind would reinvest in such troublesome communities? Justice for looters is a revolving door in Democratic courts. In New York, the policy of no bail fees is the brainchild of Governor Cuomo. Crime isn’t a crime. Criminals aren’t criminals. Store owners can only cry in frustration after the looters are arrested and released back onto the streets. This is Democratic justice.

More evidence of the collusion between the rioters and the lack of police involvement came from former NY mayor and crime-fighter, Rudi Giuliani. He said that Bill De Blasio was interfering in the enforcement of the law. He accused the mayor of phoning his police chiefs and ordering them not to enforce the law. “He is holding back the police department.”

This was confirmed by David Paterson, the former Democratic Governor of New York, who said, “We are dealing with a different kind of riot than we did years ago. We have outside agitators.”

“This is happening in Democratic progressive cities that are friendly with criminals,” Rudi Giuliani said to Fox News Sean Hannity.

A final word about the police is this. In the recent violence more police officers were injured than protesters

Leo Terrell is a civil rights lawyer and a Democrat. He is alarmed by what he has seen to express himself this way;

“We people of color want law and order. You know why these mayors and governors won’t bring in the National Guard? They don’t want to acknowledge that President Trump is absolutely right, and they don’t want to give him the credit.”

I will go one step further. They don’t do it because it doesn’t fit their political agenda which is diametrically opposite to that of a President who wants a prosperous America and was giving it to them before the virus and the rioting.

In a previous article, I wrote about the anecdotal tweeting of a person called Chris Martin Palmer. He sent out a series of tweets as raging riots spread in his wealthy Los Angeles. As a Democrat, he thrilled by what the protesters were doing as he posted a picture of a burning Minneapolis building.

“Burn that s**t down! Burn it all down!” he thrilled.

The building happened to be an affordable housing project for the homeless and poor people.

CMP deleted that tweet, but you can’t delete a cancer, Chris.

As the raging arson fires moved in the direction of his own Los Angeles neighborhood, he still didn’t get it.

“Wouldn’t miss it for the world,” tweeted the excitable Chris. “A historic event. I will try to capture plenty images.”

The destruction of people’s properties and hard-earned businesses was just a selfie to him. No pain – yet.

By the time it moved into his rich neighborhood, he was getting worried.

“You bring that shit to our neighborhood and I’m gonna have a real problem with it. There’s a lot of people up here who care and are angry. Attacking our neighborhood kills the movement and disgraces George Floyd. Are the Beverly Hills cops jerks?”
Then, “They destroyed Starbucks and are now in front of my building. Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood!”

Too late, Chris. The cancer is in your party and it’s far too late for surgery.

Now Chris can do some self-reflection. Were the riots really chaos, or organized mayhem? And does he now subscribe to their goals?

Chris may get it, but too many voters haven’t. They are still oblivious of what is happening in front of their eyes.

The final question has to be, are you voting with the mob, or against them?

©All right reserved.

VIDEO: America and it’s Future — ‘If I were the devil’

America and its future – Song: Time by Hans Zimmer. Video footage gathered from web. Posted by J. DeBellis.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

MARYLAND: Another Hate Crime Hoax Exposed, Racist Graffiti Writer is Black

“[I]t’s hang a [n-word] month.” – Jerome Kevin Jackson

You might see this news in a few local news reports and here at the The College Fix, but it won’t be news trumpeted by the New York Times or CNN!

(Hat tip: Aileen)

CONFIRMED: Vandal behind racist graffiti at Salisbury University … is black

Salisbury University experienced massive racial unrest after a series of racist graffiti was discovered on campus over the course of the 2019-20 school year.

The public, Maryland-based university canceled classes for a “day of healing” and hired a new associate vice president for diversity and inclusion at a cost of $140,000 annually.

Authorities have had a suspect since February but refused comment to The College Fix on details. Turns out, the vandal is black.

The man who is scheduled to plead guilty to the vandalism has been charged under a hate-crime statute. His motives for the defacement remain unclear at this time.

Jerome Kevin Jackson, 54, is set to plead guilty June 12 to maliciously defacing school property “while exhibiting racial animosity,”according to a news release from the Office of the State’s Attorney for Wicomico County published Monday.

The release states Jackson is responsible for four incidents of “racist and sometimes gender discriminatory graffiti” on campus during the fall semester as well as another incident in February 2020 in which the words “it’s hang a [n-word] month” were scrawled on a wall with black marker.

Here are 50 campus hate-crime hoaxes The College Fix has covered since 2012

Required viewing for Mr. Jackson and his ilk!

A day or so ago reader Linda sent me this incredible Youtube video in which an African American man lectures his fellow blacks (and whites).

Maybe a judge could use messages like this when sentencing people like Mr. Jackson.

LOL! Make him watch this a few dozen times! (In addition to whatever other punishment he must get).

Watch! It is just under ten minutes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Immigration Slows due to Chinese Virus, Federal Employees at USCIS Could be Furloughed

Providence Pervert Charged with Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

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