VIDEO: DivestU

/in , , , , , /by

It’s no longer a secret that many college campuses today are nothing more than leftist indoctrination camps. But what can we do about it? Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, offers a simple and effective solution.

RELATED ARTICLE: There’s Rampant Academic Fraud

EDITORS NOTE: This video was made possible by a generous grant from Colorado Christian University. Learn more at PragerU.com/CCU.

TRANSCRIPT

Year after year, Americans pour billions of dollars into colleges and universities.

I’m not talking about the outrageous tuition costs, living expenses, and fees – the debt pit students fall into. And I’m not talking about the tax money – our money – colleges and universities get from federal and state governments. I’m talking about the money Americans are handing over to these institutions of their own free will.

In 2017, that number was $44 billion. $44 billion in donations in one year from alumni and other donors. And for what? To enhance the education of America’s youth?

Do you really think our college graduates are better educated, more literate, more versed in classical philosophy and American history than they were ten, twenty, or fifty years ago?

If your child goes to college and spends four years partying, skipping class, and playing video games, consider yourself lucky. It’s when they actually listen to their radical professors that you’re in trouble.

So what have our institutions been doing with all this money?

Well, the University of Michigan’s Vice Provost of Equity and Inclusion makes $400,000 a year. The university spends close to eleven million dollars annually on diversity and inclusion staff and programs, according to a recent report.

What do you think Vice Provosts of Equity and Inclusion (and almost all schools have one now) do all day? They, and the small armies they supervise, spend all day, every day, looking for racism, sexism, classism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and any other phobias they can dream up. If they don’t find some bias somewhere, they’re out of a job. So, guess what? They find it – even where it doesn’t exist.

The University of California at Santa Cruz now has an “activist-in-residence.” His job is to mint new leftist activists – as if we have a shortage.

Why are we voluntarily giving billions and billions of dollars to hopelessly corrupt institutions that overcharge, underdeliver and undermine the most basic values of Western Civilization? We should be starving this beast. Instead, we’re feeding it.

Are there exceptions to this rule? Colleges that are actually dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom? Of course, there are – and they are worthy of your financial support. But you can count them on two hands. The rest have a different mission. And they have more than enough coin to carry it out.

The aforementioned University of Michigan has an endowment of 12 billion dollars. But that’s small potatoes compared to Yale’s $30 billion or Harvard’s $40 billion. And donors keep giving them more.

It’s time to stop.

You’d be better throwing your money into a bonfire. That’s just a waste. But when you donate to your average university, you’re actually hurting your society.

You’re the reason kids – maybe your kids – are coming home:

• Loving socialism and hating free market capitalism; • Believing male and female don’t objectively exist; • Excusing rockets being shot into Israel, then blaming Israel for defending itself; • Romanticizing Che Guevara and reviling George Washington; • And dismissing America, arguably the most decent country ever created, as racist, genocidal, imperialist, white-supremacist, hate-filled, and misogynistic.

Your children are being fed a steady diet of this nihilism in grade school, middle school, and high school. But they have to come home for dinner every night.

College is where the leftist deal is sealed. They’re free of your influence and under the sway of their leftist professors and leftist peers.

Stop supporting institutions that don’t support your values; that, in fact, despise your values. And, believe me, they despise you when you’re back is turned. The only thing they love about you is your money.

Oh, you might say, I would never give money for all that diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense! I designate my donations to the business school or the medical center. If you think that, you’re fooling yourself. Money is fungible. You can designate it for anything you want, but you can’t control what the university does with it.

I travel around the country every week trying to rescue kids from the leftist cult that is college. It’s bad enough that I have to battle administrators, professors, and leftist student bodies. I shouldn’t have to fight you, too.

College has become a big business. Most indoctrinate rather than educate. The best way to force them to change is to take away their cash. Your cash. Start today.

I’m Charlie Kirk, founder and president of Turning Point USA, for Prager University.

Global Warming — Science vs Political Science

/in , , , , , /by

Since you have an interest in the Global Warming issue, I’m sending along a current public exchange I’m having with a well-known climatologist. As he publicly disparaged my qualifications to even discuss the AGW matter (!), it should be no problem for a person of such elevated expertise, to win this debate. You decide…

[FYI, if you’re pressed for time, or only have a passing interest in the Global Warming issue, then just look at #7 and #8.]

Here’s a brief chronological history:

1) the Adirondack Park (in upstate NY) is the largest park on the continental US (6 million acres). It is an extraordinary place that has unparalleled natural beauty. I’ve been a lifetime resident of the Park, so I have plenty of first-hand experiences with most of it. As an environmentalist, I’m a Park protector.

2) The Park is overseen by a powerful NYS agency, called the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). They establish a wide assortment of zoning rules, etc. that cover the entire Park. In general these are beneficial. For example, to date, industrial wind energy and solar are both prohibited. Excellent!

3) Political activists are pushing the APA to change their renewable energy restrictions. Their ultimate goal is to get industrial wind energy into the Park. As a feeler, in November the APA proposed this Renewable Energy Policy.

4) I then immediately sent the APA a 12-point objection to their proposal. (I have yet to hear any response back from them.)

5) In addition, to make citizens aware of this profoundly anti-environmental plan, I wrote a layman overview of the situation, which was published in some Adirondack newspapers.

6) After that was seen, I was asked by the editor of the well-respected bi-monthly Adirondack Explorer magazine to submit commentary for a feature they have, where major issues are debated. I submitted the con-piece about the APA’s proposed renewable energy policy. It came out a few weeks ago.

7) A NYS paleoclimatologist, Dr. Curt Stager, took issue with my Adirondack Explorer commentary, and last week got a lengthy op-ed published (attacking my competence, etc.).

8) I just finished a response to Curt’s polemic— and submitted it for publication, today. I’m sharing a slightly longer version with you, as I thought you might like to see a rather impassioned exchange between scientists about some of the key Global Warming issues.

There are multiple things to learn from this exchange. Although this is a moderate amount of reading, it’s an interesting, informative discussion of the Global Warming matter — making some points rarely seen.

Global Warming is THE issue of our times. After reading this you’ll have a much better understanding of this whole matter, and what’s really going on.

Let me know any questions.

As usual, please forward this information to any other open-minded parties you think might profit from it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.

13 Times in February Armed Citizens Intervened to Stop Crimes

/in , , , /by

The fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a vital tool safeguarding individual liberty.

Last month, we documented some extraordinary examples from January of armed citizens relying on their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and others.

We pointed out that these were average, everyday Americans who were just going about their lives. They did not go looking for evil but were nonetheless prepared to deal with the evil that found them.

February has produced even more evidence that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not an anachronism that no longer deserves constitutional protection, but a vital tool safeguarding individual liberty.

Studies routinely indicate that every year, Americans use their firearms in defense of themselves or others between 500,000 and 2 million times. Very few of these defensive gun uses receive national publicity—if they receive publicity at all.

Below, we’ve highlighted just a handful of the many times during the month of February that law-abiding Americans demonstrated the importance of the Second Amendment.

  • Feb. 2: A restaurant owner in Akron, Ohio, scared off a masked man who attempted to rob him with a knife. The man fled, and police believe he successfully robbed a different restaurant just hours later.
  • Feb. 5: A Nashville, Tennessee, woman was attacked from behind by a would-be purse thief, who proceeded to repeatedly slam the woman’s head into a wall when she resisted him. The woman’s husband heard her cries for help and came to her defense, firing his gun at the thief and causing him to flee.
  • Feb. 9: When three armed men attempted to rob a Little Caesars restaurant in North Fort Myers, Florida, a patron inside pulled his own firearm to defend other customers. One suspect was shot and the other two fled.
  • Feb. 12: A homeowner in Jackson County, Georgia, heard someone trying to break into her house through a window. She found a man standing outside and warned him not to come into the house. Nevertheless, the man broke the glass window, so the armed homeowner shot him.
  • Feb. 13: Sullivan County, Tennessee, Sheriff Jeff Cassidy praised the actions of a concealed carry permit holder who ended a deadly domestic violence incident at a dentist’s office. The armed citizen shot and detained an active shooter who killed his wife and may have planned to harm others in the office.
  • Feb. 14: An Evans, Georgia, mother shot and killed her boyfriend after he began violently assaulting the woman’s 15-year-old son during an argument.
  • Feb. 16: Two masked assailants attempted to rob 35-year-old Antonio Santiago in Allentown, Pennsylvania, pepper spraying his face and “pistol whipping” him with a BB gun that appeared to be real. In an act of self-defense, Santiago grabbed his own handgun and fired at his attackers, killing one of them. Two other suspects fled, but were eventually arrested and tied to two other recent crimes in the area.
  • Feb. 17: An armed good Samaritan in Daytona Beach, Florida, intervened and fired a shot to stop a knife-wielding man, who had already stabbed someone, from stabbing other people outside a convenience store.
  • Feb. 20: A 79-year-old Commerce, Georgia, homeowner called 911 to report a burglary in progress after she heard someone breaking into her home. The burglar ignored her threats and came in through an upstairs window before police could arrive. The homeowner shot at the burglar, who was so scared that he hid in a closet until the police arrived.
  • Feb. 24: Three armed men ambushed a Houston, Texas, couple who were walking out of their apartment complex, forcing them back inside to rob them. The boyfriend retrieved his own firearm from within the apartment and exchanged fire with the three men, injuring one of them.
  • Feb. 26: The Mobile County, Alabama, Sheriff’s Office posted a Facebook video showing an armed local homeowner’s recent encounter with two would-be burglars. The burglars attempted to enter the occupied home in broad daylight, and were only deterred when the homeowner fired her handgun at them.
  • Feb. 27: A group of teenage thieves entered a pawn shop in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and tried to flee with two guns they grabbed from behind the counter. Armed store clerks chased the teens and held them at gunpoint until the police could arrive, preventing the future unlawful use of those stolen firearms. Police believe these teens are responsible for other gun thefts and may be able to take other illegally possessed guns off the streets as a result of these clerks’ actions.
  • Feb. 28: Two men helped rescue a woman from a would-be kidnapper in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, after seeing her struggle to escape on the side of the road. After the two men stopped their car, one of them pulled out his handgun, prompting the suspect to flee. He was later apprehended and confessed to kidnapping the woman.

These individuals were all law-abiding citizens whose lives and livelihoods depended upon their ability to exercise their natural right of self-defense. Without a robustly protected right to keep and bear arms, the Americans in the cases above would have been left to the mercy of criminals who don’t much care for the rights of others.

Despite this reality, gun control activists and lawmakers have spent the last month pushing legislation that would severely hamper the ability of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and others.

They have proposed effectively stripping young adults of their Second Amendment rights by raising the legal age for firearm purchases. Apparently, while law-abiding 18- to 20-year-olds are mature enough to vote, serve on juries, and be drafted into the military, they can’t be trusted to legally purchase a handgun with which to defend themselves and their families.

The bill for universal background checks, which recently passed through the House of Representatives, would compound this problem by depriving young adults of the ability to receive firearms via private transfers.

Gun control advocates have introduced bills that would limit magazine capacity for privately-owned firearms and that would prohibit future civilian purchases of semi-automatic rifles that serve as some of the most effective guns for home defense.

The irony is that, while civilians would be stripped of the right to immediately defend their lives and property with these guns, the law enforcement officers who respond—perhaps too late—to calls for help overwhelmingly choose those same firearms precisely because they are the most effective.

All of these proposals would significantly burden the exercise of a constitutional right that, as the data from February shows, is commonly used by average Americans to enforce their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

We don’t make law-abiding citizens safer by disarming them or making them less capable of fighting back against criminals. We only make them easier targets.

COLUMN BY

Amy Swearer

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Facts About Gun Control and Homicide Rates

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

The Most Intolerant County in America (and the Most Tolerant City)

/in , , , /by

Suffolk County Massachusetts, which represents the heart of the Boston-Cambridge-Newton part of New England, appears to be the most politically intolerant county in the US.

he Atlantic recently asked PredictWise, an analytics firm, to rank US counties based on partisan prejudice (“affective polarization”). The results are now in, and they are fascinating.

The most intolerant country was not Rabun County in northeastern Georgia, where the film Deliverance was shot. Nor was it in Albany County, Wyoming, where Matthew Shepard was killed. And it was not in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, where Emmett Till was lynched more than a half-century ago.

The most politically intolerant county in the United States, The Atlantic says, appears to be Suffolk County, Massachusetts.

Suffolk County, part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, represents the heart of the Boston-Cambridge-Newton part of New England.

As of 2016, it had a (mostly white) population of 784,230, all of whom cram into 58 square miles of land surface area. The median family income is about $58,000. It is highly educated, with 44 percent of residents holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, and it is barely a stone’s throw from two of America’s most esteemed universities—Harvard and MIT.

Politically, Suffolk County is about as progressive as America gets. The county’s three congressional districts—the 5th, 7th, and 8th—are represented by progressive Democrats: Rep. Katherine Clark, Rep. Ayanna Soyini Pressley, and Rep. Stephen Lynch. Just 5 percent of county residents identify as Republican. No GOP presidential candidate has claimed Suffolk County since Calvin Coolidge—in 1924.

Perhaps more shocking is the least politically prejudiced place in America. That would be Watertown, New York.

Watertown has a population of about 27,000. The median household income is $36,115. Like Suffolk County, Watertown is mostly white. It also happens to be young, suburban/rural, and not over-educated highly educated. And its politics?

“This most tolerant town is in a county that voted for Trump by a 20-point margin,” Andrew Sullivan observed in New York magazine. “Let’s absorb that fact for a while, shall we?”

Most people, The Atlantic notes, discriminate against the political opposition explicitly and implicitly. We do this in whom we hire, date, and marry. We make snap judgments about people’s patriotism, compassion, and intelligence.

All humans do this, but PredictWise’s findings show some Americans are more inclined toward this than others.

The makeup of Suffolk County fits closely with what researchers identified as America’s most politically intolerant bunch: “woke white liberals” (to borrow a phrase from Sullivan).

“In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves,” The Atlantic reported.

Members of this group in particular “don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents.”

The findings, the authors say, dovetail with research from Diana Mutz, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor who has found “that white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity.”

Older progressives are not the only people prone to tribalism or political isolation, of course. In fact, PredictWise found that overall, Republicans appear to dislike Democrats more than Democrats dislike Republicans. And other research has found that younger adults are even more politically isolated than older adults.

A 2017 poll from Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, for example, found that millennials have thicker “bubbles” than other age demographics, meaning they are less likely to interact with people who don’t share their values.

If any of this talk of bubbles and social isolation sounds familiar, it might be because Charles Murray made similar observations in his 2012 book Coming Apart.

One of the book’s many themes is class bifurcation, specifically the idea that a new “elite” is forming that is out of touch with what Murray calls “white mainstream America.” (You can take Murray’s quiz to see how thick your own bubble is.)

Conservatives might contend that they’re happy to not associate with squishy progressives from Suffolk County preaching social justice, just as many progressives in Suffolk County might say they’re happy to not associate with anyone who wears a MAGA hat, shoots animals, or listens to Rush Limbaugh.People are entitled to associate with whom they choose, of course; but there is a price to this attitude. As Alexander Hamilton once observed, bringing differing opinions into conflict is essential to democratic health and ultimately serves as a check on majoritarianism.

“The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in [the legislative] department of the government . . . often promote deliberation and circumspection,” said Hamilton, “and serve to check the excesses of the majority.”

Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein has also warned of the rise of what he calls “group polarization.” The basic idea is that when humans associate only with people who think as they do, they become more certain and more radical.

Here is what Sunstein wrote in his 1999 paper “The Law of Group Polarization”:

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming.

This general phenomenon—group polarization—has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, “radicalization,” cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism.

The rise of group polarization, I suspect, is what is driving the decline in basic civility.

The more we associate only with our group, the more we see people not part of that group as “others”; the more we see people as others, the deeper we fall into the trap of collectivist thinking.

The great challenge, now as always, is to reject group identity and recognize people as individuals.

“Only individuals can learn. Only individuals can think creatively,” wrote Leonard Read in 1954. “Only individuals can cooperate. Only individuals can combat statism.”

Read’s wisdom doesn’t apply to just the people in Suffolk County. It’s a lesson we’d all do well to remember.

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. Reach him at jmiltimore@FEE.org.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pew: Fewer than 10% ‘truly independent’ and ‘much less likely’ to even vote

Police Question UK Journalist for ‘Misgendering’ a Transgender Woman

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.

Open Borders Push Americans To Socialism: Democrats seek total control over America.

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

My dad sagely told me that you could turn a capitalist into a communist overnight, simply by taking away his/her money.

In the beginning, it was the Republicans who wanted open borders to provide their political base, the business owners, with cheap and compliant workers.  As more foreign Third World workers entered the labor pool and brought with them Third World expectations of drastically substandard wages and working conditions, these wages and working conditions became the new standard.  This forced American workers to settle for less money and fewer benefits if they wanted to keep their jobs.

For the greedy and immoral exploitative employers, the bottom line is the bottom line.

Decades ago the Democrats resisted this push for foreign workers because the Democrats understood that their base, Americans workers, wanted to be  protected from the unbridled greed of their employers.  Unions also promised to protect their members against unscrupulous employers.

Essentially the scales were balanced.  The Republicans represented business owners and the Democrats represented the workers.

However, the labor unions began pushing for the rights of illegal alien workers as the number of Americans who joined unions dropped.  The union leaders simply “did the math.”  More members meant the union had more political leverage and more members paid more union dues.  This was a “win/win” for the unions and a disaster for the American workers they purported to represent while encouraging ever more foreign workers to come to America.

When I was a new INS agent I was more than a bit surprised that when I participated in raiding garment factories, literal “sweat shops” and arrested many illegal aliens, often the labor unions would send bail bondsmen to our office who arrived nearly as soon as we arrived with our illegal aliens in custody.  It was clear that the unions did not care whether their members were U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants or illegal aliens, only if they joined the unions and paid their dues.

In recent years the Democratic Party came to the same conclusion reached by the labor unions years earlier.  Flooding America with alien workers, both legal and illegal, would ultimately increase the numbers of voters who would likely vote for the Democratic candidates, not unlike the unions, cynically claimed that they would protect their jobs and wages.

Commentators frequently opine that the Republicans want cheap labor while the Democrats want those new voters.

While that simplistic assessment has merit, what is being missed is that as more foreign workers enter the United States, either legally or illegally, the wages for American workers is suppressed.  Labor is, after all, a commodity.  When you flood the marketplace with any commodity, the value of that commodity is decreased.

This would negatively impact millions of Americans who would be forced to vote for the party of the hand-out, the Democrats.

A massive increase in H-1B visas for high-tech workers greatly lowers the wages for workers in those industries.  Therefore the Republicans who are eager to placate their constituents have sought to greatly increase the numbers of those visas.

As noted above, the Democrats are also eager to increase the numbers of those visas as well.

My recent article, Open Borders Facilitate America’s Race to the Bottom included a quote from Alan Greenspan the former Fed Chairman when he testified at a hearing before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee on April 30, 2009 at the behest of Chuck Schumer, the then-chairman of that subcommittee on the need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  He was referencing the need to drastically increase the number of H-1B visas to meet the demands of Microsoft’s Bill Gates.  Greenspan’s prepared testimony included this outrageous assertion in which middle class workers were referred to as the “privileged elite!”

Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.

In other words, the solution to “wage inequality” is to destroy middle class wages!

When huge numbers of Americans lose their jobs or face wage suppression they will invariably vote for the (Democrat) candidates who promise to provide financial assistance.  After all, it is an established fact that voters vote their wallets.

In addition to flooding America with foreign workers, America’s non-secure borders also floods America with narcotics.  Americans who are addicted to drugs frequently lose their jobs and their ability to be hired.  This adds to the huge number of unemployed Americans.

Of course Americans who are convicted of crimes lose their right to vote.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats are attempting to pass laws around the United States that would enable convicted felons to vote?  Those felons, because of their economic hardships are virtually guaranteed to vote for Democratic candidates.

Do you still wonder why Democrats want to legalize marijuana, the gateway drug to heroin and cocaine, or not secure the borders to prevent the entry of drugs or illegal aliens?

If you doubt the impact all of this has on the United States, on March 11, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a wide-ranging interview with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

In addition to noting the impact of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and globalism Powell also turned to the current opioid crisis:

PELLEY: This builds on a conversation that we were having a short time ago. You mentioned the opioid crisis. It’s that big a problem in the labor force?

POWELL: Yes, it is. The opioid crisis is millions of people. They tend to be young males. And it’s a very significant problem. And it’s part of a larger picture of low labor force participation, particularly by young males.

PELLEY: I mean, you seem to be talking about part of this generation being lost, unattached from the rest of the economy.

POWELL: That is the issue. When you have people who are not taking part in the economic life of a country in a meaningful way, who don’t have the skills and aptitudes to play a role or who are not doing so because they’re addicted to drugs, or in jail, then in a sense they are being left behind. And there are too many of those people. And I think bringing them into the labor force would enormously benefit our country. We’d grow more strongly. And I think it would be good for the economy and good for the country.

These disenfranchised Americans are potential Democrat voters if only they were able to vote.

The Lunatic Left’s new darling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stunned her audience when she said that we shouldn’t fear robots because people who have no jobs would be able to pursue their interests.

What has been missed by those who ridiculed her is the fact that the goal of the Democratic Party Socialists is to unemployed as many Americans as possible.  Without paychecks they would be entirely dependent on the handouts offered by the Democrats.

The obvious long-term goal of Ocasio-Cortez and her cohorts is a one-party government.

The Democratic Party.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.

America Deserves Much Beto Than O’Rourke

/in , , , , /by

Watching Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke announce his candidacy for president, I had snake oil salesman come to mind. Everything about this guy is fake, which makes him a perfect candidate for fake news media to celebrate.

My wife Mary and I spent several weeks in Texas campaigning for Ted Cruz, fighting to stop O’Rourke from stealing Cruz’s senate seat. It was incredible watching O’Rourke’s TV ads. Funded with mega-millions from outsiders, O’Rourke’s entire US senate campaign was built upon deceiving voters.

For example: While claiming to be pro-second amendment, great deceiver O’Rourke voted against every piece of pro-gun legislation that came to his desk. To deceive voters into believing he is a regular guy, millionaire O’Rourke posted video of himself in a laundromat doing laundry. O’Rourke came disturbingly close to scamming Texans into electing him over Ted Cruz.

In his elect-me-or-we’re-all-gonna-die presidential campaign announcement, O’Rourke claimed there are crises in our economy, democracy and climate. O’Rourke urgently warned Americans that we are in a “moment of peril”. What on earth is O’Rourke talking about?

Our Economy: Trump has our economy booming. Black unemployment is the lowest in recorded history. Hispanics and women are also doing great in Trump’s economy.

Our Democracy: Mr O’Rourke the truth is you and your fellow Democrats are the greatest threats to our democracy. Democrats seek to criminalize conservative thoughts, conservative speech and gun ownership. Given their vindictive destruction of Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, Democrats outrageously seek to criminalize working for Trump. 

Our Climate: For the ga-zillionth time, man-made climate change is a proven hoax. O’Rourke passionately warns that not embracing the Green New Deal will lead to the extinction of the human race in a decade or so. Here’s a reminder of the insanity in the Green New Deal. By 2030 we must end air travel; end the use of fossil fuels; mandate that every new job be unionized; decommission every nuclear plant; rebuild every building in America for state-of-the-art energy efficiency and government funding everyone including deadbeats who refuse to work.

O’Rourke continued his trademark deception tactic. He said we should ensure immigrants “lawful paths to work”. Wait a minute, dude. You and your fellow Democrats say screw our immigration laws, lets rolling out the red carpet for illegals. Democrats say because we have pillaged the world’s resources and because we are racist, sexist and homophobic, we do not have moral authority to keep anyone out of our country. Not only is O’Rourke fighting to stop Trump from building a border wall to keep Americans safe, he wants to tear down the existing border wall in El Paso, Texas. 

O’Rourke said we should “listen to and lift up rural America.” The truth is, O’Rourke and his fellow Democrats despise rural America. Rural America voted for Trump, desire to keep their guns, attend Christian churches on Sundays, believe marriage is between one man and one woman and they believe abortion and infanticide are evil. Pandering to rural America is simply more of O’Rourke’s campaign of deception.

As a black American, I was stunned when O’Rourke said we should “confront the hard truths of slavery, and segregation, and suppression in these United States of America.” What the heck is he talking about? Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 ended slavery in America. The only segregation I am aware of is black students segregating themselves on college campuses; demanding black student unions and race-based housing facilities. Who are the masses of Americans O’Rourke claims we are suppressing? Do you see O’Rourke using Democrats’ disgusting tactic of dividing Americans into bogus victimized voting blocs?

After spewing gloom-and-doom, America sucks and everyone is a victim lies, O’Rourke had the audacity to say, “This is going to be a positive campaign.” I laughed out loud.

O’Rourke is anti-law enforcement, voting against ICE. He calls our nation’s police “the new Jim Crow” which cruelly paints targets on the backs of our brave men and women in blue to be assassinated by Black Lives Matter.

Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien who was deported several times and kept coming back to his sanctuary city, San Francisco. Kate’s Law would give mandatory jail time to illegals who repeatedly break our immigration laws. O’Rourke voted against Kate’s Law. Supposed man of the people O’Rourke voted against Trump’s tax cuts. O’Rourke wants single-payer health-care which leads to rationed health-care, in which government makes funding decisions determining who lives or dies.

While in Texas campaigning for Ted Cruz, I got to witness O’Rourke’s deceptive tactics up close when he ran for US senate in Texas. My brother and sister fellow Americans, our country deserves much better than sociopath conman Beto O’Rourke. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Democratic Presidential Candidate ‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s 1988 ‘Love Poetry’ titled ‘Wax My A**, Scrub My Balls’ Re-surfaces

Reuters held story about Beto O’Rourke until after Senate race

Fascism: Socialism with a Capitalist Veneer

/in , , , , /by

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission.

Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory. The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state.

The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

This article was reprinted with permission from the Library of Economics and Liberty.

COLUMN BY

Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families and thousands of articles.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Captive State’ — How, Via Coercion, Distant Autocrats Take Control of Humanity

/in , , , , /by

Captive State is a film about control, total control of humanity by global government. Our contributors have written about the effort to create a global government (a.k.a. One World Order) under the United Nations’ program titled Agenda 21.

Rolling Stone magazine reporter Bilge Ebiri describes Captive State perfectly saying, “The largely unseen Legislators rule not through the gee-whiz space-age power of laser beams and whatnot, but via the traditional coercion of distant autocrats.”

Simply stated, the only way UN Agenda 21 can work is to have “distant autocrats”, using coercion, to deny private citizens of their private property rights. If you own nothing you are nothing. Hence a Captive State is where the people, with the aid of technology, become the “property of the state.”

Well now there is a film that portrays how this comes about. Take out the “aliens” and put in the United Nations autocrats who implement Agenda 21 at the city, county, state and national levels and you have the theme in Captive State.

Watch the trailer:

Captive State is about how the leaders of every country voluntarily submit to global governance run by the “Legislators.” Sound familiar (BREXIT)?

According to the Focus Features Captive State website, “After 10 years of occupation, some chose cooperation, others chose resistance.”

Today we see this playing out in the fight between those who hold dear their national identities (nationalists) and those who want a world without borders run by autocrats (globalists).

As Ayn Rand wrote, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

There is a growing resistance against the globalists in places like France, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Brazil and Venezuela. And yes, in America as well. Globalists embrace collectivism. Nationalists embrace individuality and freedom.

Captive State is about the individual versus the collective.

This Is CNN Facing a $275 Million Lawsuit

/in , , , , , /by

The family of Nicholas Sandmann is suing CNN for $275 million.

Sandmann, who is a high school student from Kentucky, was waiting for his bus after March For Life when the students began to receive taunts from a group of Black Hebrew Israelites. Soon after, Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, walked into the crowd of students.

A video of the incident soon circulated and various media outlets, including CNN, portrayed a story that appeared to show Sandmann instigating a confrontation with Phillips. As the complete story has come out and the whole video has been circulated, a very different narrative has developed–clearly, Sandmann was an innocent bystander trying to avoid escalating a tense situation.

Nicholas Sandmann’s co-counsel, Todd McCurty, released this statement via Fox News :

“What CNN’s tagline is, is, ‘facts first,’ and what we believe their reporting was in this circumstance was, ‘lies first, cover up second,’ and facts not yet determined by that organization.”

Mccurty went on to say:

“without any reasonable investigation, they took something straight off Twitter that had been in essence manipulated so that it told one story and they reported it as the truth.”

Now, CNN has been criticized often for left-leaning bias in reporting. However, what should also be noted is CNN’s history of funding the liberal activist organizations. While the Sandmann story and subsequent lawsuit is just one example of biased, and apparently downright dishonest, reporting, the situation does serve as evidence as to how corporate activism may infect c company’s ability to conduct business.

CNN scores a 1.7 because they fund groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, HRC, and LULAC among many others. All of these groups are leftist organizations, so how can we expect CNN to report unbiased news?

If you want to see for yourself exactly what organizations CNN supports, you can see that here. If you would like to reach out to CNN and tell them why you do not watch their programming, click on the button below.

Contact CNN!

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

VIDEO: Democratic Presidential Candidate ‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s 1988 ‘Love Poetry’ titled ‘Wax My A**, Scrub My Balls’ Re-surfaces

/in , , , , , /by

Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, and an American of Irish decent, was at one time a love poet. Scott Morefield, a reporter for The Daily Caller reports:

Beto O’Rourke’s recently unearthed membership in the hacking group “Cult of the Dead Cow” may not have included the “edgiest sorts of hacking activity,” but it did, apparently, include writing murder fantasies and exceptionally bad poetry.

Writing under the now-exposed pseudonym “Psychedelic Warlord,” a teen-aged O’Rourke appears to be the author of a poem titled “The Song of the Cow,” published in 1988 by “cDc (Cult of the Dead Cow) communications.”

Read more.

The Daily Caller News Foundation published a “dramatic reading” of some of Mr. O’Rourke’s love poetry:

No, this is not political satire! This is what Mr. O’Rourke actually wrote.

We believe this is what Mr. O’Rourke intends to do with the American people.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuters Journalist Withheld Damaging Info About Beto O’Rourke Until After Senate Race

Beto Takes One Question On Guns — Gives An Answer Both Sides Will Hate

VIDEO: Election Theft — Voter Fraud — Judicial Injustice

/in , , , , , , /by

At the Sarasota Patriots for Trump monthly forum the guest speaker was Mark Adams. The title of his presentation was “Election Theft – Voter Fraud – Judicial Injustice.”

Please watch:

ABOUT MARK ADAMS

Mark Adams has a law degree and an MBA, and practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark won the first and only injunctions getting a third party candidate into televised debates. Mark has also handled more Congressional election contests than any other attorney, and unlike the other attorneys who have handled election contests, Mark gathered proof that the election results were manipulated in 2006 and 2008. Mark has also exposed corruption in our judicial system.

Mark discusses solutions to these very critical issues. Mark has done extensive research on the Framers, the Constitutional provisions that they thought would ensure liberty and justice, and how the Constitution has been subverted in order to allow our country to be pillaged and our liberty to be stolen. Mark will explain the fundamental rights which were supposed to enable us to maintain a Constitutional Republican government which was controlled by the people and how those fundamental rights have been stolen.

 

Of Tweets and Termites: Intersectionality and the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

/in , , , , , , /by

Albert Einstein once observed, “If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.”

Why are Einstein’s words uttered some ninety years ago so relevant today? Because anti-Semitism, like some ancient Bacillus frozen in Arctic permafrost and defrosted, has again reared its ugly head; not just in Europe but around the world. This “new form” of anti-Semitism claims to be different from the traditional racial and religious images. Its adherents say that they are anti-Zionist, NOT anti-Semites. But listen very carefully to what they are saying and you will hear accusations that could easily come right out of the pages of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Just recently, in the Belgium city of Aalst, a parade took place which featured a float whose ludicrous depictions of Jews were virtually the same as those seen in the pages of “Der Sturmer.” The float featured grotesque distortions of several Jews in religious garb complete with sidelocks sitting atop bags of money with a rat perched atop ones shoulder. It was anti-Semitism of the most virulent obscene kind that Julius Streicher himself would have been proud of. What makes this sickening display even more alarming is the official sanction given to it by the Mayor of Aalst; Christoph D’Haese who stated that “It’s not up to the mayor to forbid such displays,” and that the carnival participants had “no sinister intentions” . . . NO SINISTER INTENTIONS? I suppose one could say that Adolf Eichmann had no sinister intentions either. After all, he himself had no part in the actual killing process; he merely organized the transports to the death camps. He was just a man doing his job; no different from Mayor D’Haese of Aalst.

Here in the U.S. we have our own anti-Semitic scandal. Newly-elected Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Muslim immigrant from Somalia, has been tweeting a series of anti-Semitic tropes, which she has refused to apologize for or retract, and which has caused a great deal of controversy. What is extremely alarming is the inability of the Democratic party and its leadership to in any way try to condemn, censure or remove her from her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Indeed, just the opposite has occurred with Democrats from around the country, and even a number of Jews themselves, rushing to her defense. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself stated that “Her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” Really! Not too long ago, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan declared, “People call me an anti-Semite. Please. I’m not an anti-Semite; I’m anti-TERMITE.” One cannot help but wonder if Speaker Pelosi would say that Minister Farrakhan’s statement “was not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” In refusing to repudiate Omar, Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic party has unofficially endorsed her anti-Semitic tweets. Their silence is deafening. Defenders of the party will point out that Congress did pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism . . . as well as condemning Islamophobia . . . and ALL forms of hate against Hindus, Seikhs, LBGTQ’s and all people of color. But there have been no reported statements by any member of Congress against any of the aforementioned groups, except ONE . . . Ilhan Omar’s tweets concerning Jews. What would normally in the past have been a “no-brainer” for any Democrat, is suddenly taboo in this new age of political correctness, identity politics, and radical ideology. This is an indication of how far to the left the Democratic party has moved and attests to the nexus that exists between the radical left and Islamists.

As the Democratic party continues its lurch to the left, and all indications are that it will, invariably becoming even more anti-Zionist and by extension anti-Semitic; inevitably embracing the policies of organizations such as the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Movement. To add insult to injury, there is a motion in the UN that was introduced in Jan 2019 by the Palestinian Authority to reinstate UN Resolution 3379; first adopted in 1975 and later revoked in 1991. That resolution declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” There are no other people anywhere in the world, at any time in history that has this dubious distinction. When South Sudan gained its independence in 2011, after years of bloodshed, did ANYONE at the UN propose calling the national aspiration of the South Sudanese to their own homeland racist? The Kurds, an ethnic group indigenous to the Middle East whose population is scattered between Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey also aspire to their own national homeland, and NO ONE has called them racist. Only Israel and the Jews have that distinction. Make no mistake: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The two terms have become conflated together. If you agree that Israel is as evil and repugnant as they say, then the ONLY possible remedy for such a racist apartheid fascist state is its TOTAL destruction; its Jewish population either exterminated or exiled.

This is how it begins. Slowly, surely, irrevocably, methodically, step by step, removing the constraints away from what was previously thought of as unacceptable. Get the population used to seeing and hearing various forms of anti-Semitism from parade floats to rhetoric on an almost daily basis. This normalization of Jew-hatred coupled with the refusal of politicians both here and abroad to seriously address the issue and choosing to defend the perpetrators, along with a left-wing media’s reluctance to adequately report on these events, makes the acceptance of anti-Semitism by the general public inevitable. Anti-Semitism has now gone mainstream. Look at what is happening in Europe today. In France, home to the 3rd largest Jewish population in the world, Jews are leaving in ever increasing numbers in response to a new wave of anti-Semitic incidents. In Britain, the openly anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn, head of the left-wing Labour party, is eagerly anticipating his own accession to power while Prime Minister Teresa May laments on how sad it is that British Jews feel they no longer have a future in Great Britain. American Jews, for their part, seem almost blissfully unaware of the tsunami of anti-Semitism that is engulfing Europe and will sooner or later make its way here with the same intensity we see in Europe. “We are safe here,” is a commonly heard refrain. “We are a civilized and cultured country with laws that protect us,” they claim. So are Britain and France. So was Germany during the two world wars. Germany, during the 1920’s and early 1930’s was generally regarded by many as the most advanced country on the planet; scientifically, culturally, and artistically. This was the country of Beethoven, Bach, Goethe, and Heine. German Jews considered themselves to be patriotic Germans. More than 100,000 of them had served in the German army during the first world war; some 30,000 of whom were decorated for bravery; yet, when their time came they walked into the gas chamber along with all the others. Many American Jews are almost totally ignorant of this fact. They continue to cling to their ancestral ideology; a combination of Progressivism, ultra-Liberalism, neo-Marxism, and the Jewish concept of “tikkun olam.” They ardently believe that the main threat to Jews today comes from the neo-Nazis and the KKK. While it is true that these groups do exist, they comprise only a small percentage of the population. Of course, there are both leftist Jewish and non-Jewish groups who would disagree with these statistics. They choose to lump all Republican Conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them into the category of neo-Nazis and right-wing hate-mongers. They ignore the real threat today that comes NOT from a maligned and numerically inferior neo-Nazi and KKK Movement, but from an unholy alliance of convenience between the radical left and Islamists; a fact most American Jews cannot and will not accept.

The radical left of today is playing for very high stakes. Ultimately, it is all about power and control. They will continue to spread their message of identity politics, victimhood, social justice, racism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism in order to achieve these goals. They will continue to practice what has become known as the doctrine of intersectionality; which allows them to make common cause with any other group they perceive as “oppressed.” This is why you see anti-Israel and anti-Semitic signs displayed by just about every radical left group at demonstrations throughout the country. It is why a few years ago, activists in Ferguson, Missouri carried placards saying, “From Ferguson to Gaza; the struggle continues.” The vast majority of American Jews have gone along with these policies in keeping with the belief system of their forebearers. They are unable or unwilling to comprehend that their Progressive, Liberal, Neo-Marxist ideology has shifted its allegiance to those who seek the destruction of the Jewish state and by extension – the Jewish people.

American Jewry today is at a crossroads. In all probability the vast majority of American Jews will continue to cling to their ancestral belief system. It is what they are familiar with. It is what their parents and grandparents believed in. It is all they know. To change now would be to deny everything their family members and they, themselves, have lived for. But before they bury their heads in the sand once again, they should at least hear these simple truths. When our enemies came for us during the Holocaust, they did not ask if we were Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Jews. Neither were they interested in any past service we may have rendered to the state. WE WERE JEWS! That was all that mattered; and if history repeats itself . . . when our enemies come for us once again in the future; they will not ask if we are Israelis or Zionists. They will not care that we marched in the Civil Rights Movement; protested against apartheid in South Africa; supported equal rights for women; advocated for the LBGTQ community, and campaigned for Hillary or Bernie. You will be a Jew – and that is all that will matter!

The anti-Semitism that has been unleashed today by the radical left and their Islamist allies is of a kind that is so visceral; so virulent; so vile; so vicious, and so vitriolic that it can no longer be justified under the guise of anti-Zionism. In form, content, and message, it is EXACTLY the same as that which was seen and heard during the heyday of the Third Reich. It is what made the Holocaust possible. What begins with a parade float in Aalst, Belgium, inevitably ends in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. This is the fate our enemies have in store for us. This is why Grand Ayatollah Khameini in Tehran rejoices that more Jews are moving to Israel; it will make it easier to find and kill us all when the time comes.

As for the Jews themselves, most of them will continue doing as they have always done, confident in the assurances of their religious and political leadership that “we are safe here.” They will continue to vote for, support and finance the party and the ideology that will ultimately lead them down the pathway to their own destruction and that of the state of Israel. Vladimir Jabotinsky was quite correct when he wrote about them decades ago: “The Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophe. He won’t buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky. He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.” History may yet prove that when it comes to the Jews, Jabotinsky, was an optimist.

College president Rejects Motion to Suspend Israel Study Abroad Program backed by Antisemitic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib

/in , , , , , /by

“Students and faculty of California’s Pitzer College voted Thursday to suspend the study abroad partnership with Israel’s University of Haifa, but college president Melvin Oliver is declining to take any action on the program, calling it an “academic boycott of Israel.”

In a slap in the face of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and her antisemitic followers the President of Pitzer college rejected a move backed by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to suspend the Israel abroad study program. This is more than the Democratic controlled Congress did in the face of Tlaib’s antisemitism. Thank you President Melvin Oliver.

Read the Free Beacon column:

College President Rejects Motion to Suspend Israel Study Abroad Program

Anti-Israel Pitzer College proposal backed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib

BY: Brent Scher

Students and faculty of California’s Pitzer College voted Thursday to suspend the study abroad partnership with Israel’s University of Haifa, but college president Melvin Oliver is declining to take any action on the program, calling it an “academic boycott of Israel.”

The anti-Israel proposal, backed by radical leftist groups and Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, won the support of the Pitzer College Council in a Thursday vote taken by both students and faculty. Oliver says the vote amounts only to a recommendation to the president and is declining to take it.

Oliver made numerous arguments against the proposal in a Thursday message to the academic community, including that it was “prejudiced” against Israel, would “curtail academic freedom,” and that it is not the school’s role to take political positions.

“Although some claim that this is not an academic boycott of Israel, I disagree,” Oliver wrote. “The recommendation puts in place a form of academic boycott of Israel and, in the process, sets us on a path away from the free exchange of ideas, a direction which ultimately destroys the academy’s ability to fulfill our educational mission. I categorically oppose any form of academic boycott of any country.”

READ MORE.

VIDEO: Events Unfolding Rapidly Six Days To Go

/in , , , /by

We were informed by Q on February 27, 2019 that in twenty-one days to be prepared for a BIG, BIG, BIG EVENT, HISTORIC. Well as of this blog post, there are six days to go. What has occurred since the Q announcement?

Events Unfolding Countdown Continues

For starters, keep this in mind. The Mueller investigation (witch hunt), has produced no evidence whatsoever against the President for collusion with Russia. And so the gig is up. Thus the onslaught of subpoenas and law suits etc. against the President. The desperate deep state is running out of ammo. Events of no coincidence are rapidly unfolding on the countdown to the BIG EVENT.  And the big event in six days is just a dribble but it opens the flood gates. Consider this.

In recent days we have learned that FBI attorney Lisa Page’s transcripts reveal she testified that investigators had no answers on collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia before the appointment of special counsel Mueller. We, in recent days, have also come to learn about the university bribe investigation as these sealed indictments have now become unsealed rocking the already battered elites in Hollywood. Nancy Pelosi knows her time and the democrats time is up. They have been cornered by the President and team. She knows that President Trump has all the good on everyone. In a desperate move, Pelosi has backed off her support for impeachment. Furthermore, as of today, March 13, 2019, FB is not functioning properly to say the least. Sure there will be a cover story for this-don’t buy it. FB is not your friend. Could this be a test of sorts by FB to soon beef up their efforts to silence the truth that will be reveled in six days?

Then there is the Boeing crisis. Software hacking? I for one do not buy the headlines on this and neither should you. As Q, the President and we the patriots have a plan, so does the deep state cabal. False flags are being and will continue to be deployed to distract from the truth that is about to be revealed in six days and over time.

Then there is the economy which requires an entirely dedicated post. We know they want to take down the economy as yet another move to detract voters from voting for Trump in 2020. Could it be that they are attacking the financial center of the country starting with our biggest exporter, Boeing? They have control over Boeing and Boeing is complicit with guilty knowledge of how their aircraft has been hacked and used by dark deep state forces. Remember Ex CIA Kevin Shipp has told us that the private sector (namely silicon valley tech), and the defense contractors have also signed similar secrecy and immunity agreements as the CIA and other intel. agencies sign. We are at war. It is evident for the astute free thinking critical thinker and wise observer, that we can expect more events and perhaps events of magnitude.

Paradigm Shift as the World Awakens

In this great awakening, we can see why it is that the media including CNN are faltering in stock valuations and viewership and readership. They are exposed. People are moving away from fake news and looking towards alternative places for truth. Venezuelans are starving for food. Americans are starving for truth. We can also see through Hollywood as well with their endless baseless attacks against this President. We have come to learn about pedophilia (the Achilles heel of the deep state), the university bribes and pay-offs. So the once respected and admired opinion leaders, (news castors, actors and actresses), along with corporate executives, and many others are being exposed for who they are. And it’s the tip of the iceberg folks. There are over 82,000 sealed indictments. Many will be unsealed very, very soon. Yes we are winning!

What to Do?

Wake up! Expand your thinking. Question everything. Be vigilant. Surround yourself with like-minded people who understand the times in which we live. Ground yourself in faith. Pray for our President as there have been multiple plots and attempts. Have a plan B in the event of civil unrest or perhaps martial law down the road. Protect and preserve your assets as President Trump is also draining the economic swamp and this road will also get bumpy before sound money is finally restored. Seek truth. Expose lies. Reveal truths. Support this President and the plan. And be prepared for several years of turbulence as we proceed towards the ultimate victory.

President Trump and the patriots are restoring the rule of law and the restoration of sound money thus restoring the power to the people. To do this, we must take control of the NSA, the Federal Reserve, the Central Banking system, the media, the DOJ and the corrupt political establishment. This is being done. So much has been accomplished.

Conclusion

We are experiencing an unprecedented covert war of biblical proportions. A battle between good and evil. The good news is that evil is now hiding in plain sight. It is obvious who the enemy is. They have de-cloaked. This is why we must change the channel and seek and follow the truth of our times and get on board now. Go to the home page of my website and request two free digital e-book reports that you may find helpful. “How to Detect Truth from Lies in the Age of Fake News ” and “Preparing for the Global Financial Reset”. Be sure to watch the four videos posted below. And remember, freedom is up to us. WWG1WGA.

Deep State Expert: Trump Has All The Goods On Everyone!

Plan to Save the World

We are the Plan

Dark to Light

Let’s Get Serious About What Constitutes a National Emergency

/in , , , , , , /by

Let’s get serious. If hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens storming our southern border is not a national emergency what is?

Leftists don’t consider open borders a national emergency because they welcome illegal hordes into America to overwhelm the welfare system, collapse the economy, and vote illegally to insure one-party Democrat dominance. It is their preferred road to destroying America from within and imposing socialism.

Sharia compliant Muslims do not consider it a national emergency because hundreds of thousands of their sharia compliant Muslim Brotherhood brethren are pouring in determined to replace our Constitution with sharia law and establish an Islamic caliphate on United States soil.

Drug dealers do not consider open borders a national emergency because their product can be brought into the country easily without fear of incarceration.

Gang members do not consider open borders a national emergency because their murderous brethren can cross the border and be protected in sanctuary cities.

Human traffickers do not consider open borders a national emergency because open borders makes selling young girls into sex slavery far simpler.

Robert Mueller does not consider open borders a national emergency. He was FBI director for almost five years under Obama and oversaw the resettlement of 47,000 Somali refugees into Minnesota when vetting refugees from countries with hostile norms should have been a national priority.

Organizations in the resettlement industry like Church World Services, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the National Association of Evangelicals World Relief Corp that have been paid tens of millions of dollars in federal funds do not consider open borders a national emergency because refugee resettlement is big business.

The nine federal refugee contractors that are the core of the Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), the lobbying arm of the refugee industry, do not consider open borders a national emergency because the more refugees that are admitted the more money they make.

  • Church World Services (CWS)
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
  • US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
  • World Relief Corporation (WR)

The RCUSA marched for Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda organization, and paid lobbying firm Podesta Group $100,000 to lobby Congress in 2017. Investigative reporter Michael Leahy reports, “The Podesta Group’s proposal stated, “Our primary targets will be Republicans-and some key Democrats who work well across the aisle-who sit on committees of jurisdiction and whose responsibilities include refugee and asylum policies.”

Targets specifically identified in the memo included Senator Flake on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Graham, Rubio, Murkowski, and Collins, all on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Today, Nancy Pelosi has appointed Muslim Brotherhood spokeswomen Ilhan Omar to the Foreign Relations Committee and Rashida Tlaib to the Senate Appropriations Committee. They will not require expensive lobbying to support open borders.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) does not consider open borders a national emergency. In fact, the UNHCR is one of the loudest voices promoting mass immigration and colonization to erase America.

Globalists do not consider open borders a national emergency because their primary goal is the obliteration of national sovereignty and territorial boundaries everywhere in the world.

United States Senators swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and are duty bound to secure our territorial borders. So, who are these politicians who have broken their promise to America and why have they refused to define the invasion on our southern border as a national emergency?

Every Democrat senator voted against President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border. No surprise there.

12 senate Republicans in name only (RINOs) voted against President Trump. You can call them yourself and ask them why.

  • Lamar Alexander (R-TN) – 202-224-4944
  • Mitt Romney (R-UT) – 202-224-5251
  • Mike Lee (R-UT) – 202-224-5444
  • Rand Paul (R-KY) – 202-224-4343
  • Susan Collins (R-ME) – 202-224-2523
  • Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) – 202-224-5301
  • Pat Toomey (R-PA) – 202-224-4254
  • Jerry Moran (R-KS) – 202-224-6521
  • Rob Portman (R-OH) – 202-224-3353
  • Roger Wicker (R-MS) – 202-224-6253
  • Marco Rubio (R_FL) – 202-224-3041
  • Roy Blunt (R-MO) – 202-224-5721

Any serious discussion about our southern border crisis has to acknowledge that a whopping 70% of Americans know that illegal immigration is a national emergency that threatens our national security and social stability. President Trump was elected to secure the southern border and build a wall. So, why would 59 senators sworn to support and defend the Constitution vote to nullify President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency?

To answer that question we must evaluate the ideological and financial goals of the senators who voted.

Corrupt politicians are easy to understand – like any whore their favors are paid for.

Ideological motivations are far more difficult and troubling to explore. Sadly, in contemporary America it is no longer realistic to assume that US Senators sworn to support and defend the Constitution and our representative democracy are ideologically dedicated to the Constitution and our representative democracy. This is no small thing considering the future of America will be determined by their votes.

Americanism is represented by President Trump and the 41 Senators who supported the President’s national emergency declaration. They are all dedicated to upholding the Constitution and preserving our representative democracy. They pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis has common cause to dismantle the Constitution and destroy representative democracy in America. The 59 Senators who voted to nullify President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency voted against upholding the Constitution and preserving our representative democracy. Whether motivated by personal animus, money, Socialism, Islamism, or Globalism, they have all pledged their allegiance to the global flag of the United Nations and to the one world government for which it stands.

59 American senators pledging allegiance to the global flag of one world government is the national emergency. Americans must get serious about what constitutes a national emergency because the 2020 presidential election will determine which flag will be raised on inauguration day.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.