Rep. Omar Wants to Replace July 4th With Muslim Heritage Month

July is when families load up screaming kids into a minivan for a road trip, when water parks overflow with the smells of cotton candy and chlorine, and Chicago shootings reach highs only previously witnessed in minor South American wars. Sprinklers rotate over dying lawns and glorious fireworks rise into the sky over a American million cities, towns and villages.

But Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and a bunch of other leftists would like to turn July into Muslim American Heritage Month.

“As we continue to see an uptick in anti-Muslim hate, it is important we recognize the resiliency and accomplishments of Muslim Americans with a formal resolution,” Rep. Omar claimed.

Except that July was already designated the National French-American Heritage Month.

I’m not clear on what Muslim accomplishment in America took place in July (another month later in the year comes to mind), but we celebrate our revolution on July 4th and the French celebrate theirs on July 14th. The French supported our revolution and we supported theirs (at least until it turned into the orgy of social justice killings and insane decrees that leftist revolutions always degenerate into whether it’s on college campuses or in countries).

“Muslim-Americans have played a major role in shaping our nation for centuries,” Rep. Andre Carson, insists. “Designating July as Muslim-American Heritage Month is a wonderful opportunity to honor the trailblazers who came before us.”

Muslims played little role in America until the 1970s with the embrace of Islam by black nationalist opponents of the United States and the onset of violent terrorist attacks like the Hanafi Siege in D.C. While the next phase of the 1619 Project will no doubt produce its alternative history which will reveal that Alexander Hamilton bowed to Mecca and Dolly Madison wore a burka, there’s little doubt among sane historians that the French were here first.

There are 12 million Americans of French descent and while the last time a congressional resolution on French-American Heritage Month was passed was back in 2002, that’s because Franco-Americans are much less vocal about occupying cultural territory than Omar and Tlaib. The resolution noted that the French had established parts of the United States, that Lafayette had fought for American independence, Tocqueville had explained America, and L’Enfant had laid out Washington D.C. (3 out of 4 ain’t bad). The French were here first.

Though perhaps Rep. Carson can explain more of the “major role” that Muslims played “in shaping our nation for centuries” and how it exceeds that of the role played by the French.

If it weren’t bad enough that Omar, Tlaib, and Carson were spitting in the faces of 12 million French-Americans, they’re also hijacking Disability Pride Month. The Hamas Caucus could try to move Muslim Heritage Month to June, but that’s already Gay Pride Month. And when Islam and gay people meet, the latter tend to get thrown off tall buildings and then stoned to death.

August however is pretty clear aside from being National Immunization Awareness Month.

But, much like the Ground Zero Mosque had to be near the site of the greatest impact Islam has had on shaping American history, Muslim Heritage Month has to take over July.

No other month will do.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib had already introduced a resolution for April as Arab Heritage Month where it displaced Scottish American Heritage Month. (But what contribution have the Scots ever made to America compared to the centuries of Omar and Tlaib’s shaping of the country?)

Does Tlaib really need two months or a sixth of the calendar year? Heritage months are generally ethnic, not religious. But the Hamas Caucus wants two months to start with. Having seized one month from the Scots, they’d like to hijack another one from the French.

One of them has to be about violating the separation of church and state by promoting a religion.

And hating America.

July means fireworks, barbeques, and patriotic songs. But Rep. Rashida Tlaib would like it to be about honoring “the achievements, contributions and sacrifices of Muslim Americans in the face of rising anti-Muslim hate.” Or, according to Tlaib, it will “provide an opportunity to foster religious tolerance nationwide and combat misinformation directed at the Muslim community.”

Like every theme month lately, this seems destined to be another ‘America Sucks’ month. But it will come packaged with an extra share of Dawah or Islamic missionary activity while informing us that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and anyone who disagrees should be beheaded.

Los Angeles, which rushes wokely where angels fear to tread, is already celebrating Muslim Heritage Month through its libraries with Linda Sarsour’s biography and Rep. Omar’s biography. Don’t just think of Muslim Heritage Month as displacing July 4th when it’s also a great gimmick for selling otherwise unsellable books. And even as the Taliban retake Afghanistan and prepare to put those women who took off their burkas and hijabs in their place, Muslim Heritage Month is being used to promote The Proudest Blue: A Story of Hijab and Family to small children.

Indeed, the resolution itself promotes the hijab by insisting that “women who wear the hijab, or headscarf” are discriminated against in America. The resolution then goes on to celebrate accused domestic abuser Keith Ellison and then, after appropriating July, tries to also appropriate the ice cream cone. It’s one thing to hijack the Fourth, but ice cream cones too?

“Whereas Syrian immigrant Ernest Hamwi’s invention of the ice cream cone is a practical confection with a near ubiquitous presence in American life,” the resolution falsely claims.

While the ice cream cone is indeed a most ubiquitous and practical confection, the ice cream cone was invented and patented by Italo Marchiony: an Italian-American immigrant.

First, Omar and Tlaib displaced the French and the Scots, and then the Italians.

Ernest Hamwi, a Syrian immigrant, did play a role in the ice cream business, and he patented his own cone decades later in the twenties, but he was Christian, not Muslim. Ernest was one of the many Syrian-Lebanese Christians who fled Muslim persecution and a famine to come to the United States in the beginning of the twentieth century. He married into a local American family and was buried in Valhalla Cemetery. His stepson, Arthur C. McGuffin, took over his company.

As July wanes and Omar and Tlaib try to appropriate the month and even its ice cream, replacing swimsuits with hijabs and the Declaration of Independence with the demonization of America as a racist Islamophobic society that only has two months to celebrate their heritage, instead of twelve, let’s remember the heroic American patriots who fought to keep us free.

The only heritage month we truly need is the heritage of our freedom from all tyrannies.

Including the one American soldiers were fighting from the “shores of Tripoli” in the First Barbary War of 1801 to the one that they are still fighting today against terror in our homeland.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Batman’ Cartoonist Frank Miller Canceled From Comic Convention For ‘Anti-Muslim Hate’

UK: Imprisoned Muslim pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, was released anyway, stabbed two people

Germany: Two women are gang-raped every day, half of the suspects are Muslim migrants

Biden State Department spokesman: ‘We look to China to play a role that is constructive’ in Afghanistan

India: Muslims threaten to slit Hindus’ throats, blow up Hindu temple

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

We Can’t Solve the Sexual Assault Problem Unless We Solve The Porn Problem

The porn industry is an example of “limbic capitalism”, a business system in which global industries encourage excessive consumption and addiction.


The issue of sexual assault has been at the forefront of the public mind of late. This is largely due to the shocking revelations of a study released earlier this year that claimed 86 percent of women aged 18-24 had experienced sexual assault in a public space. A previous study in 2014 found that 33 percent of women across the EU had suffered physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15.

The difference in these findings is probably more to do with methodology than with anything else. However, whichever study paints the more accurate picture, there is clearly a crisis in sexuality that cannot be solved by simply setting a curfew for men and it would be a fruitless exercise to attempt to change the current culture without first addressing the problem of porn among young men.

A survey conducted in 2020 found that men across Western European countries consumed, on average, 70 minutes of porn a day – while 2.2 percent of respondents consumed more than seven hours. More shocking still is the level of consumption by children and young teenagers. In Australia, research shows, 93 percent of adolescent boys have been regularly exposed to pornography, and children as young as seven are exposed to it due to availability via online devices.

The pandemic and subsequent lockdown policies have exacerbated the problem and have been instrumental in the rise of the pornography platform “OnlyFans” which has been used by many “sex workers”.

The porn industry is an example of “limbic capitalism”. The historian David Courtwright has coined this term “to describe a technologically advanced but socially regressive business system in which global industries, often with the help of complicit governments and criminal organisations, encourage excessive consumption and addiction. They do so by targeting the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for feeling…”

Consumers are trapped in damaging cycles of behaviour the consequences of which are only now becoming clear. Much of the male population is now exploited by the sex “industry” – though clearly not as much as many of the women “working” in it – and it is having terrible effects.

The consumption of pornography has many perverse consequences. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that porn consumption and sexual assault are closely linked. Studies show that porn makes many consumers more likely to support violence against women; to believe that women secretly enjoy being raped; and actually to behave in a sexually aggressive manner in real life. The aggression may take many forms – verbally harassing or pressuring someone for sex; emotionally manipulating such a person; threatening to end a relationship unless “favours” be granted;  deceiving or lying to another about sex; or even physically assaulting them. The campaign Everyone’s Invited provides yet more testimony to the effect of pornography on relationships between the sexes.

There has been little recognition of the destructive impact pornography has on the perception of what is appropriate sexual conduct. The sex industry debases and exploits women. Men are wholly capable of having fictitious and “satisfying” interactions with women where the concept of consent and rejection are entirely absent. The issue of sexual assault can never truly be tackled unless we can solve the problem of pornography.

Most men living in Western Europe and the USA do respect women and that is a mark in some measure of how advanced and humane our civilisation is, but the prevalence of porn is a sign of decadence and moral decline. Women must be treated with the dignity that is theirs as fellow children of God, and not as mere objects for sexual gratification.

This article has been republished from Conservatives Global

Greg Teague

Greg Teague is currently studying a Masters degree in Early Modern History at King’s College, London. More by Greg Teague

RELATED ARTICLE: Germany: Two women are gang-raped every day, half of the suspects are Muslim migrants

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

‘State of Fear’: Are We Being Manipulated by Behavioral Scientists?

British journalist Laura Dodsworth argues that the UK government is ‘weaponizing’ fear.


Long before David Attenborough brought his soothing voice to the explication of animal behaviour for the BBC Life series, the North American television public had been introduced to the majesty and oddities of the natural world through Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.

I remember lying on my stomach in my grandparent’s living room watching programs about lions and eagles, the Great Barrier Reef, the reindeer of Lapland. Footage from those hours of Sunday viewing flooded back to me in the first weeks of Covid lockdown. I watched my friends and neighbours react to media messaging like herds of grazing animals suddenly elevating necks, pricking up ears, rippling hides in response to a predatory shadow or scent.

A threat had been detected. Anxiety came in waves.

I was not immune to fear, of course. In early April 2020 I messaged a group of friends, “Raise your hand if you have experienced this: You haven’t left the house for four days, you go out to do groceries and when you come back you think, ‘Is that a little tickle in my throat? Why do I suddenly need to cough?’”

To a woman, they all raised their bitmoji’s hands.

As those first weeks of lockdown extended into months of restrictions, we learned more about the virus and about the threat it did or didn’t pose. Yet I grew increasingly concerned at how fearful and herd-like we had become. Many seemed to be stuck in panic mode. How and why had so many become so very, very frightened?

In her recently published book, A State of FearBritish photographer and journalist Laura Dodsworth provides penetrating answers. She analyses her government’s use of behavioural psychology in its attempt to direct the public response to the threat of SARS-CoV-2. Dodsworth asserts the government “weaponised” fear and, indeed, weaponized behavioural psychology. To everyone she interviewed, she posed the question: “Is it ethical to frighten people ‘for the greater good?’”

I grew increasingly concerned at how fearful and herd-like we had become. Many seemed to be stuck in panic mode. How and why had so many become so very, very frightened?

Fear is an important response to perceived threat that elicits physiological changes in the body. Fear does several things, including suppressing rational thinking and heightening suggestibility. This controlling emotion has long been recognized as a powerful tool in the manipulation of human behaviour. Marketers, religious leaders, the media, and politicians have all deployed it. Fear, notoriously in both the domestic and the political arena, encourages compliance.

The lockdowns implemented in the spring of 2020 were an unprecedented response to a public health crisis, and Western politicians were uncertain how their citizens would respond. How could they ensure compliance? Dodsworth says the British government took advice from behavioural insight teams. Five groups played a role in shaping and implementing the government response:

Dodsworth outlines techniques used by the government, including “seeding” and “foot-in-the-door.” These two concepts will be familiar to students of Psychology or Marketing 101. The former involves planting an idea like a seed to prime clients for a sale – or citizens for the next pandemic restriction. For example, masks were originally introduced to the public mind as not-fit-for-purpose; but by bringing them into the discussion, even negatively, the idea of mask-wearing had been seeded. When masks were reintroduced as an important tool in the fight against the virus, the proposal was no longer novel.

“Foot-in-the door” works on the principle that, once one has agreed to the first request, it becomes more difficult to refuse the next and bigger request. Confinement for “two weeks to flatten the curve” was accepted by the majority. It had a definite timeline and seemed manageable. But it was soon followed by new demands, by endless months of business and school closures, restrictions on movement, locked churches, and isolation.

Dodsworth argues that behavioural science is no longer occupied primarily with predicting human behaviour. Its mandate now is to influence and direct behaviour. And governments have taken a keen interest in its power to do so.

In Britain the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), unofficially known as the Nudge Unit, was set up in 2010 under Prime Minister David Cameron. BIT is now a profit-making company with offices in the US, France, Australia, and Canada.

Canada not only hosts a BIT office in Toronto; it has its very own unit. A Toronto Star article in February 2021 noted that Dr Teresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, had referenced a behavioural insight team located within the Privy Council Office. It is called the Impact and Innovation Unit and was set up in 2017. The Star’s Susan Delacourt remarks that the role the Impact Unit played in Canada’s Covid messaging is a “social-science experiment” one that “may have given government clues on how to modify citizen’s behaviour for other big global issues – such as climate change, for instance.”

Prior to the pandemic, the “nudge” might be quite mundane: a prompt to eat our five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, reduce food waste, or submit our taxes on time. In Covid times these teams are orchestrating more dramatic campaigns to generate full compliance with public health measures and providing politicians with talking points in defence of these measures. Their campaigns frequently stoke fear and scapegoat the non-compliant.

In illustration, Dodsworth quotes from a discussion paper presented to the Scientific Advisory Group by its pandemic behaviours subgroup on March 23, 2020: “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.”

At the outset, it was the unmasked, the quarantine-breakers, the youth congregating at house parties, and the religious who were the “covidiots” responsible for driving numbers up and “killing granny.” A few months ago, an op-ed published in Israel’s Ha’aretz even described ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not follow State rules as “Covid insurgents” and “terrorists.”

Today, about three months after publication of her book, Dodsworth has proved prescient in her prediction that the unvaccinated would be condemned as “reckless, socially irresponsible or stupid.”

She is a lockdown critic. Some may find far-fetched her comparison of the manipulation of public opinion by the government to the behaviour of a cult. But this is not a book about the ethics or utility of lockdowns. It is a book that asks important questions about the negative, long-term effects of a campaign of fear deliberately conducted by the government. It queries the part played in that campaign by the media, both mainstream and social. And it probes the role of unelected “psychocrats” in the design and implementation of the campaign.

A State of Fear also raises the “why” question – to what end was this campaign directed? Dodsworth does not think it was only about handling Covid. She thinks that by exacerbating the fear around Covid governments (or those who advise them) are building compliance muscle-memory in citizens, perhaps to prepare them for future sacrifices that will be demanded in a war against climate change.

Her call for a public debate should not go unheeded. She has demonstrated that “the behavioural science framework for making the population comply with being locked down involved powerful techniques which deserve public consultation.” Her own fears for the future, if no such debate takes place, are fears I share.

But along with those memories of Sunday afternoons stretched out in front of Animal Kingdom listening to Marlin Perkins, there is another memory that comes back to me, in a different voice.

In 1978, at his Inauguration Mass, St. John Paul II began his papacy with the clarion call that would become the hallmark of his papal ministry: “Be not afraid!” Later, in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he would remark that in a certain sense this was “an exhortation addressed to all people, an exhortation to conquer fear in the present world situation.”

John Paul II knew from his experience in Poland what it meant to live in a State of fear. He knew also, from his experience with God, that there is no reason for us to be in a state of fear.

“Have no fear of what you yourselves have created, have no fear of all that man has produced, and that every day is becoming more dangerous for him! Finally, have no fear of yourselves,” he advised.

“Peoples and nations of the entire world need to hear these words. Their conscience needs to grow in the certainty that Someone exists who holds in His hands the destiny of this passing world; Someone who holds the keys to death and the netherworld; Someone who is the Alpha and Omega of human history – be it the individual or collective history. And this Someone is Love.”

This article has been republished with permission from Convivium

Anna Farrow

Anna Farrow is Executive Director of the English Speaking Catholic Council, a lay organization which acts as a coordinating forum for English-speaking Catholics in Quebec. 

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

Can We Stop With the ‘Indigenous’ Bit Already?

It’s amazing how many people are trying to tear down present glories in the name of a past none of them have any interest in going back to. Bringing this to mind is the underreported story of the Canadian church burnings, acts inspired by the claim that Christian-run “residential schools” abused, brutalized and murdered American Indian children.

I investigated this story recently, and it won’t surprise many readers that the Enemedia have completely misrepresented it. And while I covered it here and will have a long magazine essay on the topic go to print this week, the shorter version is this: Insofar as Indian children were forcibly taken to the schools, it was the result of Canadian government policy; many (in fact most, it appears) Indian parents of school pupils wanted their children to attend; and some ex-students describe their years at the institutions as their lives’ best.

Furthermore, the media provocatively speak of residential schools “mass child graves.” But these sites are merely quite typical church cemeteries, and it appears that, at least in some cases, people of all kinds from the local communities were buried therein. But, hey, the Enemedia can’t be bothered with the facts. What I want to address today, however, is something even the churches’/schools’ defenders don’t say.

A central charge made against the churches/schools and the government is that they aimed to stamp out Indian culture. In point of fact, John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister — and a main residential school system author — was a benefactor to the Indians and called many of them his friends. Admittedly, though, he did consider their culture doomed to extinction and thus believed they needed to be westernized to survive as individuals. Horrible, isn’t it?

Only, he was right.

And Indian culture is, largely, extinct — by the Indians’ own choice.

Here’s reality: We all enjoy the wonders of Western culture, from modern conveniences to human rights. Virtually all of us love our refrigeration, indoor plumbing, heat, air conditioning, cars and computers, not to mention a multitude of other luxuries. We all want most of what modern science offers, such as advanced health care (we want it so much, in fact, that many demand it be “free”). As with everyone else, all responsible Indians want their children educated in the Western sense (the pre-European Indians didn’t have the written word). In other words, American Indians today don’t want to live as their antebellum ancestors did any more than I’d embrace my pre-Roman, European forebears’ lifestyle.

It’s also true that virtually everyone has ancestors whose culture, at some point, was extinguished by someone else (e.g., Europe’s many medieval tribes — such as the Vandals, Goths, Marcomanni, Quadi and Galatians — were subsumed by others). Should we go on about how these peoples, whose times and tribes we wouldn’t return to if we could, were culturally extinguished while we sip our café latte and compose angry missives on the computer?

Yet this is analogous to what too many “indigenous” (and other) activists do today. It much reminds me of an episode of the old sitcom Sanford and Son, one in which the son character, Lamont, decides to “embrace his African roots.” So he dons a dashiki and takes a couple of Nigerian friends — one of whom finally gives him a stern lecture (amusing video below) about how his “Africanism” is all superficial, style and no substance.

Lamont was posing, but no more than many “indigenous” and other activists do. It’s easy to grow your hair long as did “Indian” ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill (who, it turned out, didn’t even have Indian blood) or adopt African names as did “Ibram X. Kendi” (of “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination” fame), as he uses the millions he makes race hustling and attacking America to finance his opulent American lifestyle. It’s also easy getting in a 16-year-old’s face and banging a drum — as Indian activist agitator Nathan Phillips did in 2019 with the Covington kids — while chanting gibberish (actually learning your ancestors’ language would be too much, I guess).

Of course, many of us find our remote ancestors’ lifestyles intriguing and perhaps even somewhat romantic; I myself am a fan of the Middle Ages and wouldn’t mind going back to that period…for a day. But I’d want to return to our time, and I don’t lament that the Romans, Charlemagne and perhaps others might have extinguished some of my forebears’ culture.

This said, if you’re shattered because the Romans — or the British, French or early American settlers — made your ancestors’ culture history, then go native. Knock yourself out. But show you mean it: Enter the wilderness with a band of fellow travelers wearing a loincloth or animal skins, carrying only bronze or stone tools, depending on whom your ancestors were, and carve a life out of the forest. Best of luck to you.

As for me, the Alaskan Indian below (hilarious 90-second Malcolm in the Middle video follows) is my kind of guy.

I’ll also point out that leftists’ love affair with the “indigenous” is highly selective and becomes a hate-fest when those indigenous happen to be European; in fact, it’s as if we’re to believe Europe doesn’t even have indigenous people. Exemplifying this attitude was Social Democrat politician Mona Sahlin, who said in 2001 in reference to the Mideastern Muslim (im)migration transforming her country that “the Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”

Note that far from evoking outrage and Sahlin’s “cancellation,” her attitude is trumpeted as multiculturalist progress. And what’s befalling the Swedes isn’t called cultural genocide, but “nation-strengthening Diversity™.”

The bottom line is that we have a civilization here, now, today. If it’s worth preserving — and it has given us lifestyle and law unprecedented in history — then we should robustly defend its institutions and traditions. Tearing it down in deference to a false noble-savage fantasy that we’d never actually want as reality is, frankly, stupid.

The kicker is that too many of today’s “indigenous” activists not only don’t want to truly go native; they actually want to swap our system for another European-born one: socialism. So they don’t really want to dispense with the West — they just want the worst it has to offer.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

CDC Considers Putting Us in Camps!

Foreword by Fred Brownbill. I was sent this by a retired Lt. Col friend and patriot. I read it and although not surprised, was still shocked that Americans could still be thinking of this sort of action against fellow Americans. Please as always read and share, hit the like button and feel free to comment. As always the link is at the end of the article. Please share it fast as I am sure social media ‘fact checkers’ will remove or say it is a lie. IT IS NOT. Please take the time to read this blog in its entirety and then look at all the links they used for references.

America. These are so called Americans discussing this, deciding our futures. This is the totalitarian thinking of a communist nation – NOT a free nation.


Operational Considerations for Humanitarian Settings. Updated July 26th 2021.

This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.1,2  This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach1?

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5  For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect.

A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings 1,2 for full details.

Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach1

Level

Household (HH) Level:

A specific room/area designated for high-risk individuals who are physically isolated from other HH members.

Movement/ Interactions

Low-risk HH members should not enter the green zone. If entry is necessary, it should be done only by healthy individuals after washing hands and using face coverings. Interactions should be at a safe distance (approx. 2 meters). Minimum movement of high-risk individuals outside the green zone. Low-risk HH members continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house.

Level

Neighborhood Level:

A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals.

Movement/ Interactions

Same as above

Level

Camp/Sector Level:

A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together.

Movement/ Interactions

One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.

Operational Considerations

The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).

Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
  • If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
  • Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile.  Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
  • Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.6

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards6 are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE6 standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the shielding approach.

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • Monitoring protocols will need to be developed for each type of green zone.
  • Dedicated staff need to be identified to monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Men and women, and individuals with tuberculosis (TB), severe immunodeficiencies, or dementia should be isolated separately

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • Multiple green zones would be needed to achieve this level of separation, each requiring additional inputs/resources. Further considerations include challenges of accommodating different ethnicities, socio-cultural groups, or religions within one setting.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Community acceptance and involvement in the design and implementation

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • Even with community involvement, there may be a risk of stigmatization.11,12 Isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems. See section on additional considerations below.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • High-risk minors should be accompanied into isolation by a single caregiver who will also be considered a green zone resident in terms of movements and contacts with those outside the green zone.

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • Protection measures are critical to implementation. Ensure there is appropriate, adequate, and acceptable care of other minors or individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions who remain in the HH if separated from their primary caregiver.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Green zone shelters should always be kept clean. Residents should be provided with the necessary cleaning products and materials to clean their living spaces.

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • High-risk individuals will be responsible for cleaning and maintaining their own living space and facilities. This may not be feasible for persons with disabilities or decreased mobility.11 Maintaining hygiene conditions in communal facilities is difficult during non-outbreak settings.7,8,9 consequently it may be necessary to provide additional human resource support.

Suggested Prerequisites 

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Green zones should be more spacious in terms of shelter area per capita than the surrounding camp/sector, even at the cost of greater crowding of low-risk people.

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • Ensure that targeting high-risk individuals does not negate mitigation measures among low-risk individuals (physical distancing in markets or water points, where feasible, etc.). Differences in space based on risk status may increase the potential risk of exposure among the rest of the low-risk residents and may be unacceptable or impracticable, considering space limitations and overcrowding in many settings.

Additional Considerations

The shielding approach outlines the general “logistics” of implementation –who, what, where, how. However, there may be additional logistical challenges to implementing these strategies as a result of unavailable commodities, transport restrictions, limited staff capacity and availability to meet the increased needs. The approach does not address the potential emotional, social/cultural, psychological impact for separated individuals nor for the households with separated members. Additional considerations to address these challenges are presented below.

Population characteristics and demographics

Consideration: The number of green zones required may be greater than anticipated, as they are based on the total number of high-risk individuals, disease categories, and the socio-demographics of the area and not just the proportion of elderly population.

Explanation: Older adults represent a small percentage of the population in many camps in humanitarian settings (approximately 3-5%4,5), however in some humanitarian settings more than one quarter of the population may fall under high risk categories13,14,15 based on underlying medical conditions which may increase a person’s risk for severe COVID-19 illness which include chronic kidney disease, obesity, serious heart conditions, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, many camps and settlements host multiple nationalities which may require additional separation, for example, Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya accommodates refugees from 19 countries.16

Timeline considerations

Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.

Explanation: The shielding approach proposes that green zones be maintained until one of the following circumstances arises: (i) sufficient hospitalization capacity is established; (ii) effective vaccine or therapeutic options become widely available; or (iii) the COVID-19 epidemic affecting the population subsides.

Given the limited resources and healthcare available to populations in humanitarian settings prior to the pandemic, it is unlikely sufficient hospitalization capacity (beds, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and staff) will be achievable during widespread transmission. The national capacity in many of the countries where these settings are located (e.g., Chad, Myanmar, and Syria) is limited. Resources may become quickly overwhelmed during the peak of transmission and may not be accessible to the emergency affected populations.

Vaccine trials are underway, but with no definite timeline. Reaching the suppression phase where the epidemic subsides can take several months and cases may resurge in a second or even third wave. Herd immunity (the depletion of susceptible people) for COVID-19 has not been demonstrated to date. It is also unclear if an infected person develops immunity and the duration of potential immunity is unknown. Thus, contingency plans to account for a possibly extended operational timeline are critical.

Other logistical considerations

Consideration: Plan to identify additional resources and outline supply chain mechanisms to support green zones.

Explanation: The implementation and operation of green zones requires strong coordination among several sectors which may require substantial additional resources:  supplies and staff to maintain these spaces – shelters, IPC, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), non-food items (NFIs) (beds, linens, dishes/utensils, water containers), psychosocial support, monitors/supervisors, caretakers/attendants, risk communication and community engagement, security, etc. Considering global reductions in commodity shortages,17 movement restrictions, border closures, and decreased trucking and flights, it is important to outline what additional resources will be needed and how they will be procured.

Protection

Consideration: Ensure safe and protective environments for all individuals, including minors and individuals who require additional care whether they are in the green zone or remain in a household after the primary caregiver or income provider has moved to the green zone.

Explanation: Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. Shielding strategies need to consider sociocultural gender norms in order to adequately assess and address risks to individuals, particularly women and girls.18,19,20 Restrictive gender norms may be exacerbated by isolation strategies such as shielding. At the household level, isolating individuals and limiting their interaction, compounded with social and economic disruption has raised concerns of potential increased risk of partner violence. Households participating in house swaps or sector-wide cohorting are at particular risk for gender-based violence, harassment, abuse, and exploitation as remaining household members may not be decision-makers or responsible for households needs.18,19,20

Social/Cultural/Religious Practices

Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.

Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.21,22

Mental Health

Consideration: Ensure mental health and psychosocial support*,23 structures are in place to address increased stress and anxiety.

Explanation: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.

Summary

The shielding approach is an ambitious undertaking, which may prove effective in preventing COVID-19 infection among high-risk populations if well managed. While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom,24,25 there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings. This document highlights a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.

Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and, conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings. As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change are the primary rate-limiting steps and may be driven by social and emotional factors. These changes are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.

Household-level shielding seems to be the most feasible and dignified as it allows for the least disruption to family structure and lifestyle, critical components to maintaining compliance. However, it is most susceptible to the introduction of a virus due to necessary movement or interaction outside the green zone, less oversight, and often large household sizes. It may be less feasible in settings where family shelters are small and do not have multiple compartments. In humanitarian settings, small village, sector/block, or camp-level shielding may allow for greater adherence to proposed protocol, but at the expense of longer-term social impacts triggered by separation from friends and family, feelings of isolation, and stigmatization. Most importantly, accidental introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission and increased morbidity and mortality as observed in assisted care facilities in the US.26

The shielding approach is intended to alleviate stress on the healthcare system and circumvent the negative economic consequences of long-term containment measures and lockdowns by protecting the most vulnerable.1,24,25 Implementation of this approach will involve careful planning, additional resources, strict adherence and strong multi-sector coordination, requiring agencies to consider the potential repercussion among populations that have collectively experienced physical and psychological trauma which makes them more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial consequences.  In addition, thoughtful consideration of the potential benefit versus the social and financial cost of implementation will be needed in humanitarian settings.*Specific psychosocial support guidance during COVID-19 as specific subject areas are beyond the scope of this document.

References

  1. Favas, C. Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in camps and camp-like settings pdf icon[465 KB, 15 pages]external icon. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 31 March 2020.
  2. Maysoon, D, Zandvoort K, Flasche S, et al. COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?external icon. 2020. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness. Content source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases. Last content review 14 May 2020.
  4. UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2016external icon.
  5. UNHCR -Rohingya Refugee Response/Bangladesh-Joint Government of Bangladesh-UNHCR, Population Factsheet. Annex I and II. March 31,2020. Sent by email.
  6. The Sphere Handbook. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, 2018 editionexternal icon.
  7. Butler, N., Tulloch. O. Anthrologica, 2020. Social Sciences in Humanitarian Action pdf icon[275 KB, 8 pages]external icon.
  8. Blum, L.S., Yemweni, A., Trinies, V. et al. Programmatic implications for promotion of handwashing behavior in an internally displaced persons camp in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Confl Health 13, 54 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-019-0225-xexternal icon.
  9. Cronin AA, Shrestha D, Cornier N, Abdalla F, Ezard N, Aramburu C. A review of water and sanitation provision in refugee camps in association with selected health and nutrition indicators–the need for integrated service provisionexternal icon. J Water Health. 2008;6(1):1-13. doi:10.2166/wh.2007.019.
  10. Nyoka R, Foote AM, Woods E, et al. Sanitation practices and perceptions in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya: Comparing the status quo with a novel service-based approachexternal icon. [published correction appears in PLoS One. 2017 Dec 19;12 (12 ):e0190129]. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180864. Published 2017 Jul 13.
  11. Working with Persons with Disabilities in Forced Displacement pdf icon[343 KB, 28 pages]external icon: Need to Know Guidance 1. 2019.
  12. IFRC, UNICEF and WHO. Social Stigma Associated with COVID-19: A guide to preventing and addressing social stigma associated with COVID-19external icon.
  13. Sethi S, Jonsson R, Skaff R, Tyler F. Community-Based Noncommunicable Disease Care for Syrian Refugees in Lebanonexternal icon. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(3):495-506. Published 2017 Sep 28. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00043.
  14. Akik C, Ghattas H, Mesmar S, Rabkin M, El-Sadr WM, Fouad FM. Host country responses to non-communicable diseases amongst Syrian refugees: a reviewexternal icon. Confl Health. 2019;13:8. Published 2019 Mar 22. doi:10.1186/s13031-019-0192-2.
  15. Rehr M, Shoaib M, Ellithy S, et al. Prevalence of non-communicable diseases and access to care among non-camp Syrian refugees in northern Jordan. Confl Healthexternal icon. 2018;12:33. Published 2018 Jul 11. doi:10.1186/s13031-018-0168-7.
  16. UNHCR, Kakuma camp and Kalobeyei Settlement Visitors Guide pdf icon[5.7 MB, 10 pages]external icon.
  17. World Health Organization. COVID-19 Supply Chain System, Requesting and Receiving Suppliesexternal icon.
  18. UNFPA: COVID-19, A Gender Lens: Protecting sexual and reproductive health and rights and promoting gender equality.
  19. IFRC, Prevention and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in COVID-19, A protection, Gender and Inclusion PGI Technical guidance note pdf icon[560 KB, 12 pages]external icon.
  20. Inter-agency Standing Committee Interim guidance -Technical note. Protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) during COVID-19 response. Version 1.
  21. Rashad, M, Farrell, S. April 24, 2020. Reuters, Islam’s holiest sites emptied by coronavirus crisis as Ramadhan beginsexternal icon.
  22. ABP News Bureau, April 24, 2020. Pakistani Imams Overrule Lockdown for Ramadan, 253 Healthcare Workers get Infected with COVID-19external icon.
  23. Operational considerations for multisectoral mental health and psychosocial support programmes during the COVID-19 pandemic, Version 1.1pdf iconexternal icon.
  24. Public Health England: Guidance on Shielding and Protecting People Who are Clinically Extremely Vulnerable from COVID-19external icon.
  25. Van Bunnik, Bram A.D., Morgan, L.K., et a. Segmentation and shielding of the most vulnerable members elements of an exit strategy from COVID-19external icon. University of Edinburg.
  26. Michael TM, Clark S, Pogosjans S, et al. COVID-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility — King County, Washington, February 27–March 9, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69:339-342. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6

©All rights reserved.

These 12 High-Profile Politicians Got Caught Violating Their Own COVID Rules

Amid widespread panic and alarmism over the “Delta variant” of COVID-19, Mayor Muriel Bowser just reinstated an indoor mask-mandate in Washington, DC. She did so despite the capital city seeing just four COVID deaths in July, leading many to dub the renewed restrictions mere security theater. The mayor’s case isn’t helped by the inconsistency of her own behavior.

Bowser officiated a wedding over the weekend with hundreds of unmasked attendees, the Washington Examiner’s Tiana Lowe exclusively reports. The event was held at a 4-star hotel and the mayor did not wear a mask even though her indoor mask mandate had just hours before gone into effect city-wide.

Unfortunately, Mayor Bowser is hardly the first politician whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Here are 12 examples of high-profile politicians caught flouting the pandemic rules their own government imposed, as cataloged by the Heritage Foundation’s COVID hypocrisy tracker.

The New York City mayor reportedly hit the gym and went to a local YMCA in March 2020 at the same time the state government was ordering New Yorkers to avoid “non-essential” business.

The Chicago mayor reportedly got a haircut in April 2020 while her city’s stay-at-home orders made doing so unlawful for most residents.

The Virginia governor reportedly socialized in close quarters without a mask despite urging Virginians to wear masks in similar settings and practice social distancing.

The New York governor reportedly traveled to Georgia in July 2020 for what critics called a PR stunt while discouraging New Yorkers from engaging in “non-essential” travel.

The California congresswoman has been a vocal advocate of mask mandates and social distancing orders. However, she got a haircut in San Francisco at a salon opened specially for her while they were generally closed due to such restrictions. And just this week a video went viral showing Pelosi removing her mask for a photo-op with a fellow member of Congress in violation of her recently reinstated congressional mask mandate.

The California governor dined maskless at a fancy indoor restaurant, the French Laundry, violating his own COVID-19 protocols.

The California senator was pictured maskless in the halls of Congress in conversation with aides, despite having called for nationwide mask mandates and mandatory mask-wearing in public.

The former Rhode Island governor closed bars in her state, but reportedly attended a maskless “wine and paint” night at a bar anyway.

The New Jersey governor reportedly attended President Biden’s January inauguration even though his state government was discouraging non-essential travel and prohibiting large gatherings.

The congressman was captured on video speaking on the floor of Congress without a mask, despite having advocated that members who don’t wear masks be fined.

In May, the Michigan governor hit the bar with friends in violation of her own restrictions. She has also admitted to traveling to Florida to visit her sick father despite the state discouraging Michiganders from similar travel. The governor also banned large gatherings yet decided to attend President Biden’s inauguration.

The aforementioned maskless wedding scandal isn’t the DC mayor’s only brush with pandemic hypocrisy. She also reportedly attended a party maskless just hours before her new mandate went into effect. And Bowser attended an election victory party for President Biden even while her government discouraged Washington residents from “non-essential” travel.

The above 12 examples of politicians caught in COVID hypocrisy are just a select few from dozens and dozens more cataloged by the Heritage Foundation. And there were no doubt many more who engaged in similar acts and weren’t caught.

The glaring “rules for thee, but not for me” approach of our political class during the pandemic to date is yet more confirmation that inequality and selective enforcement are inherent to big government systems. As FEE Managing Editor Jon Miltimore explained, “As government control over the economy expands and free markets recede, privileges increasingly become the province of those in power or those who have proximity to power.”

Having been given the enormous power to dub some businesses “essential” and close others, outlaw some livelihoods and not others, and more, politicians drunk on pandemic power were inevitably going to abuse this wild authority. So, the many examples of COVID hypocrisy from our elected officials have grave ramifications far beyond the individual officeholders and their personal integrity. They deal a serious blow to the arguments of those who think benevolent big government will lift us up instead of grinding us down.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

VIDEO: Fauci-Delta Variant Lies — Better Chance Dying in Your Shower!

The odds of any American dying from the so-called Delta Variant of the Wuhan coronavirus is not being reported to the American people. Instead, Biden, Fauci, and the media are force-feeding the people a stead stream of unwarranted fear. This is only the latest act in a political theater that is designed to make Marxists Democrats more powerful and richer. Graham Ledger speaks with Dr. Ben Marble of MyFreeDoctor.com on the truth about COVID and its Delta, along with the lawless vaccine mandates and the simple ways to combat this virus.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Rand Paul Takes Down Delta Hysteria With Cold Hard Facts

COLLUSION: Here’s Who Funds Facebook Covid Vaccine Fact Checkers

RELATED ARTICLE: These 12 High-Profile Politicians Got Caught Violating Their Own COVID Rules

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

Wisconsin Parents Tell Joe Biden To Stuff Masking Their Children Where The Sun Don’t Shine: ‘These Are Not Your Children’

Moms will save this country. G-d willing.

‘These Are Not Your Children’: Wisconsin Parents Tell Joe Biden To Stuff Masking Their Children Where The Sun Don’t Shine

By: Jordan Davidson, July 31, 2021:

Nearly 40 advocacy groups representing more than 20,000 families in Wisconsin ripped into President Joe Biden and Democrat Gov. Tony Evers for the new wave of potential mask mandates and lockdowns facing their state.

In the letter, organizations including We The Parents, Wisconsin United for Freedom, and No Left Turn in Education Wisconsin pledge to reject any mask requirements on children in schools

“Simply put, these are not your children. They are ours and they too, are Americans with rights. They are our responsibility and our most beloved. They are not yours,” the letter states.

The parents also said they would refuse to allow the government “to use your private sector counterparts to enforce invasive mask mandates on our children in various stores or at community activities” and “subject our children to any further local, regional, or national lockdowns or movement restriction.”

“We have watched the last week unfold in abject horror – observing our government institutions and leaders failing our children at every turn, again,” the letter continues. “Your renewed calls for lockdowns, enforced mask mandates, and masking in schools is not rooted in science and is objectively cruel to the most vulnerable in our society, our children. We believe that you are in fact aware of this and continue to play political games with our children, despite our efforts to work with you over the last twelve months.”

Just this week, the Biden administration endorsed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s newest mask recommendations for vaccinated Americans. Some schools in Wisconsin were already planning on requiring face coverings for everyone even before the most recent CDC decision. Now, the state’s health department is doubling down to back the CDC’s flip-flop and encourage children as young as two years old to mask up.

“We must protect our children as they head back to school this fall, along with all other Wisconsinites who are at an increased risk for being hospitalized from COVID-19. Vaccines and the additional protection from wearing masks are the best combination of tools to achieve this goal,” Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary Julie Willems Van Dijk said.

While Biden also threatened another round of lockdowns and Evers is known to go back on all of his pandemic promises, the parents said they refuse to give up their parental choice.

“We are strong. We are united. We are in control. We have never and will never co-parent with the government,” the letter concludes.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Brutal Democrats Target Landlords for Extinction, Would Make Paying Rent Voluntary

“Businessmen are the symbol of a free society—the symbol of America. If and when they perish, civilization will perish. But if you wish to fight for freedom, you must begin by fighting for its unrewarded, unrecognized, unacknowledged, yet best representatives—the American businessmen.”

“Every ugly, brutal aspect of injustice toward racial or religious minorities is being practiced toward businessmen.. . . Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.”

“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,

“All the evils, abuses, and iniquities, popularly ascribed to businessmen and to capitalism, were not caused by an unregulated economy or by a free market, but by government intervention into the economy. The giants of American industry—such as James Jerome Hill or Commodore Vanderbilt or Andrew Carnegie or J. P. Morgan—were self-made men who earned their fortunes by personal ability, by free trade on a free market. But there existed another kind of businessmen, the products of a mixed economy, the men with political pull, who made fortunes by means of special privileges granted to them by the government, such men as the Big Four of the Central Pacific Railroad. It was the political power behind their activities—the power of forced, unearned, economically unjustified privileges—that caused dislocations in the country’s economy, hardships, depressions, and mounting public protests. But it was the free market and the free businessmen that took the blame.” Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The Rental Evictions Fiasco

Democrats want an emergency measure to last forever.

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2021:

Perhaps you’ve read that the pandemic recession officially ended in April 2020, that the economy grew 6.5% in the second quarter, that employers are desperate to find workers, and that the housing market is booming. Never mind. Democrats are in a panic because the federal ban on landlords evicting tenants who haven’t paid rent in 16 months expired on Saturday.

The eviction moratorium was perhaps justifiable amid the early lockdowns that threw millions out of work, but it’s now a cautionary tale of how bad policies distort behavior and are difficult to end. The original Cares Act moratorium that only applied to federally subsidized housing expired last July, but the Trump Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed its version in September. The moratorium applied to all rental housing and tenants who earned less than $99,000 ($198,000 for couples) who claimed they lost income because of the pandemic. Landlords who evicted non-paying tenants could go to jail.

Congress extended the ban in December for a month, but then the Biden Administration extended it three times through Saturday despite rulings from several judges that the CDC had exceeded its authority. Last month Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberals in maintaining a stay on a lower-court injunction reversing the ban.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he agreed the CDC acted unlawfully but allowed the moratorium to continue so rental assistance appropriated by Congress could have more time to be distributed. But he said a “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”

Cue the political panic. On Thursday, two days before July 31, the White House issued a statement essentially blaming the Supreme Court for the moratorium’s end and urged Congress to extend it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared a five-alarm fire, but her attempt to rush an extension through the House failed. Too many Democrats balked.

President Biden implored Congress to extend the ban because only $3 billion or so of the $46 billion in rental relief that Congress appropriated has been distributed. But who’s fault is that? Not the landlords’.

The state and local governments in charge of distributing the aid have been hobbled by bureaucracy, and some tenants without the immediate threat of eviction haven’t bothered to apply. This is what happens when people become inured to government protection and subsidies. They assume it will never end. Has Congress heard of incentives and human nature?

The economic emergency has long passed and many landlords are struggling to pay their mortgages and utilities. Even Mr. Biden acknowledged recently that the moratorium may discourage some people from seeking work. The moral imperative now is to let landlords collect rent so they can stay in business and avoid bankruptcies that would lead to cascading damage throughout the rental housing market.
Mrs. Pelosi is vowing to bring the evictions ban back to the House floor for another vote, no doubt to portray Republicans as heartless. But this is a mess made in Washington and state capitals. Your government at work.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Highly Vaccinated Iceland & Gibraltar DESTROY COVID-19 Vaccine Passport Narrative — Vaccinated People Are The Biggest Spreaders

This is the proof vaccinated people are the biggest spreaders.

Highly Vaccinated Iceland & Gibraltar DESTROY COVID-19 Vaccine Passport Narrative

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

New FBI Initiative Will Put ‘Hate Crime’ Quotas On Local Law Enforcement

And guess who they’re after. Our intel and LE agencies have been weaponized against the American people.

New FBI Initiative Will Put “Hate Crime” Quotas On Local Law Enforcement

By: Eric Striker, National Justice, Jul 29, 2021:

The Department of Justice and the FBI have a message for local police departments: start charging more white people with hate crimes or invite an investigation.

Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta told an assembly of FBI agents yesterday that they are now tasked with hounding police departments in their district if they do not register any “hate crimes.”

Gupta and FBI Deputy Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative Division Jay Greenberg have declared “hate crimes” by “racially motivated violent extremists” (a euphemism generally reserved for right-wing white men) to be a national threat priority — a rare designation.

According to Greenberg, the FBI will be increasingly specialized in pursuing “hate crimes” through increased training in the matter, an aggressive media campaign designed to recruit victims in “underrepresented and targeted populations,” and putting federal pressure on local law enforcement to charge and report hate crimes when they otherwise wouldn’t.

Hate crimes laws are political and racially motivated. Blacks and Jews are heavily overrepresented as supposed victims in the FBI’s “hate crime” database, while whites are charged at higher rates than general crime rates. Blacks are rarely charged with hate crimes when they commit bias crimes against whites. For example, last month a black man who shot five white men in a multi-state shooting spree told police his sole motive was that he hated white people, yet neither local prosecutors or the FBI have charged him with a hate crime.

According to the FBI’s 2019 hate crime report, blacks are 49% of victims of racial bias while Jews are 60% of crimes motivated by religious animosity. Most of the blacks in the data were victims of “intimidation,” an often Constitutionally dubious charge. A large number of reported hate crimes targeting both blacks and Jews are hoaxes, as seen in famous cases like the Jussie Smollett incident and the thousands of bomb threats targeting Jewish community centers that were the work of a Jew in Israel.

Just yesterday, a white man was charged with “ethnic intimidation” for putting up stickers that say “I Love Being White.” The FBI wants more police departments to exploit the legal gray area and lack of First Amendment advocacy groups for white dissidents to juke crime statistics and distort the reality of crime. Blacks commit roughly 90% of violent interracial felonies, a statistic the Critical Race Theorists at the FBI find inconvenient.

The mad rush for white racists at the FBI is bound to cause more embarrassments for the increasingly discredited agency. Last year, the theater put on by the FBI over NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace’s “noose,” which turned out to be a hoax, served to reveal the hyper-politicization and lack of seriousness at the Bureau.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

NYC: ‘Palestinian’ jihad supporters scream ‘Globalize the intifada,’ ‘We don’t want two states, we want all of it’

This would require the total destruction of Israel and the genocide of millions of Jews.

Meanwhile, the call to globalize the intifada heralds more violence against Jews worldwide.

Protestors in New York cry ‘Globalize the intifada’ at demonstration

by Jeremy Sharon, Jerusalem Post, August 1, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Several hundred protesters took part in a pro-Palestinian rally on Saturday in Brooklyn, using inflammatory rhetoric and messaging against Israel. They lauded “intifada” uprisings and called for taking control of Israeli territory, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
During the protest, organized by an organization called “Within Our Lifetime – United for Palestine,” demonstrators marched behind three large banners: “Globalize the intifada,” “Zionism is terrorism,” and “We will free Palestine within our lifetime.”

Intifada is an Arabic word meaning uprising or rebellion. During the Second Intifada from 2000-2005, Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and some affiliated with Fatah, carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and security personnel, killing more than 1,000.

During Saturday’s rally, marchers chanted, “We don’t want no two states, we want all of it,” referring to the two-state solution that has formed the basis of peace proposals.

A Twitter account was deleted on Sunday afternoon after it posted video footage of demonstrators chanting, “We don’t want no two states, we want all of it.”

Among the demonstrators’ other slogans were: “If we don’t get no justice, then they don’t get no peace,” “Intifada, intifada,” “There is only one solution, intifada revolution,” “Mobilize the intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas intensifies efforts to carry out jihad massacres from Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank)

Blinken vows ‘collective response’ to Iran’s attack on oil tanker

Burkina Faso: Children screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ participated in jihad massacre in which 160 people were killed

Austria: Muslim migrant had machine gun in his luggage, is now on the run

Somalia: Muslims bomb soccer team bus, killing three people and injuring six

UK: Family of jihadi who stabbed two people claims in court that he was wrongfully killed by police

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

Silencing Saul and Saving America

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. . It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be out lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”  – Abraham Lincoln


Although Saul Alinsky died in 1972, his legacy lives on.  It manifests itself through leftist ideology, agendas, organizational strategies promoting cultural revolution and the socialistic transformation of our society. Alinsky was a community organizer who created a guide for organizations to gain legal; economic; and political power by any means necessary.  He attempted to incite people in grassroots organizations to take direct action to affect often unidentified change. One of the tools in his arsenal was to unite groups by generating conflict and through this conflict provide the organization with a specific enemy to confront and oppose.

His stated organizational efforts were to elevate minority rights and bring about the betterment of society.

They were introduced under the guise of humanitarian concerns and social justice. But we cannot be misled. His ambitions were not altruistic. He portrayed himself to be a radical. He did not promote reform, but advocated revolution. His intent was not to improve society.   But rather to destroy the very societal structures and institutions that ensure public safety and national security. Divisiveness must prevail over unity. Violence was accepted as necessary if it advanced the goals of the organization.
Although Saul Alinsky died in 1972, his legacy lives on.  It manifests itself through leftist ideology, agendas, organizational strategies promoting cultural revolution and the socialistic transformation of our society. Alinsky was a community organizer who created a guide for organizations to gain legal; economic; and political power by any means necessary.  He attempted to incite people in grassroots organizations to take direct action to affect often unidentified change. One of the tools in his arsenal was to unite groups by generating conflict and through this conflict provide the organization with a specific enemy to confront and oppose.

His stated organizational efforts were to elevate minority rights and bring about the betterment of society.

They were introduced under the guise of humanitarian concerns and social justice. But we cannot be misled. His ambitions were not altruistic. He portrayed himself to be a radical. He did not promote reform but advocated revolution. His intent was not to improve society.   But rather to destroy the very societal structures and institutions that ensure public safety and national security. Divisiveness must prevail over unity. Violence was accepted as necessary if it advanced the goals of the organization.
If there is any doubt as to his malevolent motives, it is removed by the dedication in his book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer”. 

Saul Alinsky’s organizational guide is set forth in his rules. This is a summary of the rules relevant to our discussion:

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense and it is impossible to counterattack.”
  6. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  7. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  8. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  9. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

A common thread that permeates Alinsky’s ideological principles is that the established government and our foundational values are so intrinsically evil that they cannot be resurrected, but must be destroyed. Today his theme is amplified by the left/progressives in their preoccupation with cancel culture tactics and the obliteration of our historical heritage.

Alinsky believes that patriotic heroes of the past should be demonized.  History must be rewritten so the revolution can begin with a clean slate. Governmental institutions that safeguard our peace, prosperity, public safety, and national security shouldn’t be strengthened.  They should be defunded or abolished and replaced with “reimagined” undescribed utopian governmental entities.

Antiquated Constitutional principles must be replaced with foundational premises more in keeping with contemporary societal norms. Outdated laws must be rescinded to make way for the implementation of progressive programs. Democratic and capitalistic fundamentals must be sacrificed so that a socialistic society can be realized. Most important of all, governmental leadership at all levels must be maintained by the liberal elite and institutionally preserved for generations to come.
Saul Alinsky is quoted as saying “Never let a crisis go to waste,” That advice is followed religiously by the progressive left. Their simplistic crisis resolution formula, however, always adheres to their partisan political agenda. It rarely leads to successful responsive or preventive solutions to the disaster.

The history of revolutions, warns us that it is ultimately just trading one master for another.  Even the proletariat revolutions of the twentieth century left the majority of the proletariat still grubbing in the dirt and building their masters’ new castles.
Ironically, the two most devastating crises facing our nation today – the southern border chaos and the rampant nationwide surge in violent and drug-related crimes – are not even recognized by the current administration as emergency national priorities. Arguably, this is because these are crises of their own making and they do not want to accept accountability for their consequences. The left has violated the Alinsky rule of never going beyond the expertise of their followers.
Progressive activists have no expertise in securing international borders or running law enforcement agencies. Their refusal to acknowledge or accept responsibility for their organizational efforts to sabotage, defund and abolish the institutions that safeguard our freedoms is unconscionable. Demonizing and de-platforming all conservative leaders and making accusations that all law enforcement officers are guilty of police brutality caused by inherent racism are not conducive to the establishment of a more perfect union.

The fundamental flaw in the adoption of the Saul Alinsky ideological tactics is that they are not based upon the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers. The American people are not willing to unravel the moral fabric of our society. There has been no voter mandate to overthrow our government or cause a radical transformation of our way of life. For these reasons, the Alinsky radical movement will ultimately fail.
The abiding principles of American political faith are adeptly described in The American Creed:
“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign nation of many sovereign states, a perfect union, one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, humanity, for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I, therefore, believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”
Victims of the Alinsky rule regime who have been targeted, polarized, and personally vilified as enemies of the people because of their love of country must refuse to be censored and canceled. The true enemies of the republic have to be identified.

Their principles must be understood, and their nation destroying operational strategies opposed.

Silence Saul and Save America by acting for America!

PODCAST: Why Trump Must Run Again

The state of California represents a microcosm of the Utopian world Democrats envision for the United States. It is essentially a two class society featuring the elites and working class. The middle class is fleeing the state in droves and taking their money with them, representing the economic engine businesses and government depend on to operate. Consequently, the cost of living has skyrocketed, the state is in debt, taxes are on the rise, and the government is enacting more rules and regulations routinely thereby choking the lives of the citizens and businesses remaining there. Even if you decide to leave the state, your assets come under the scrutiny of the state’s Office of Tax Appeals (OTA). Not surprising therefore, California is dependent on federal subsidies to help bail them out, something all American taxpayers must pay for. The California experiment may be applauded by Democrats, but everyone else sees it as a cesspool.

California has also embraced the concept of de-funding police departments and “catch-and-release” of criminals, meaning crime is rising dramatically, thereby deterring tourism and the safety of the citizenry. In other words, the state is no longer a fun place to visit and can actually be quite risky.

Bankruptcies are also up in the “Golden State,” and state government workers have a mandate to wear masks and take Covid-19 vaccinations (as does the federal government). No wonder Californians are fleeing to Republican states such as Texas and Florida. In all likelihood, all Democrat-led states will follow California’s model, particularly Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Not surprising, Americans are hopelessly divided over the state of the Union. Recent polls indicate the country is heading in the wrong direction and President Biding’s ratings keep sagging.

So Republicans are wondering who will stand up to the Democrats in the 2024 presidential election. Even though President Trump is the early favorite, having easily won two CPAC straw polls, some Republicans, particularly moderate RINOs are concerned with his electability. Again, we hear the lament, “He doesn’t act presidential.” Maybe, but if the former president has taught us anything, he knows how to get things done, such as securing the border, curbing unemployment, producing a robust economy, energy independence, facing down our international competition, our Jerusalem embassy, producing the Covid-19 vaccine, and much more.

The only other possible candidates as of today are Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, both good people but lack the skill to do battle with the Loony-Left, although both are learning. Frankly, what is needed is a war-time president who knows how to do battle with the Democrats. That only leaves Donald Trump, as the one person who knows how to fight back. The Democrats already know this, and explains why they continue to attack him savagely even though he is out of office. For example, the histrionics of the Democrats’ January 6th Committee is carefully choreographed and designed to bring shame on President Trump. The point is, the American public has already made up their mind on the subject and either approve or reject what is said by this committee. Basically, this is a colossal waste of time and intended to deflect criticism of Democrats as we approach the 2022 Congressional elections.

Trump alone stands in the way of the Democrats’ agenda to realize their utopian world, which is why they will say and do anything, whether it is legal or not, to keep him from returning to power.

As a businessman, President Trump learned a long time ago you do not run from a fight, particularly if you are right. Failure to do so is an admission of guilt. This is why he makes the most foreboding candidate to take down the Democrat machine. Governors DeSantis and Noem understand the problem, but may not be ready for the fight quite yet.

As an outsider, Trump doesn’t particularly care what politicians think of him, including members of his own party. He is more interested in the American people and results, including securing our government for future generations. While Democrats will try to portray him as an evil demigod, Mr. Trump will wear his two impeachments as a red badge of courage which will actually serve as an asset as opposed to a liability in the next election.

What we have to understand is that the 2024 presidential election will be the most costly and bloodthirsty in our history. The Democrats and their minions, the News Media, will see to that. To Independents and Republicans, including RINOs, you have to ask yourself, are you satisfied with how the Democrats are running the government? If not, who possesses the chutzpah to wrestle the government away from the Democrats before we go the way of California?

Forget personalities for a moment; ask yourself, who will get the job done?

Only one name comes to my mind; Donald Trump.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

As He Died to Make Men Holy Let Us Die to Make Men Free!

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea. With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me. As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free. His truth is marching on.”  – The Battle Hymn of the Republic, a Union Marching Song

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” ― Benjamin Franklin

“Give me liberty or give me death.” ― Patrick Henry


Are we headed to a second American Revolution to restore our Constitutional Republic?

In a column titled “Is America Headed Toward a Second Civil War?” I wrote:

There are multiple indicators that America is headed toward a second Civil War.

This new Civil War is not about the Southern states secession from the Republic. Rather this new Civil War is about those who want to fundamentally transform America. It’s between those who embrace liberty against those who are hell bent on imposing a tyrannical government upon American citizens.

It is in essence a battle between patriots and tyrants.

The Battle of Athens

The Battle of Athens was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens, Tennessee against their local government on August 1st, 1946.

The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption, and voter intimidation.

A plaque commemorating the Battle of Athens reads:

The Battle of Athens was an armed revolt that gained national attention. Attempting to end the control of an entrenched political machine, World War II veterans used force to ensure that on the day of local elections in 1946 every vote “was counted as cast.”

After local authorities locked themselves and the ballot boxes in the jail, veterans suspicious of foul play gathered weapons and ammunition and exchanged fire from this hill upon the jail, which once stood across the street.

The besieged authorities surrendered. At a meeting in the courthouse, the interim government was set up, followed by the election of the veterans’ slate.

Are patriots ready for another Battle of Athens?

Republicans are willing to ‘take the law into their own hands’

The Hill reports:

About 47 percent of Republicans believe that a time will come when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands,” according to a George Washington University poll on Americans’ faith in election systems and democratic values.

The GW Politics Poll, conducted among more than 1,700 registered voters from June 4 to June 23 and released this week, found that support for principles like free and fair elections, free speech and peaceful protest were nearly unanimous among Democratic and Republican voters. Approximately 55 percent of GOP respondents, however, said they support the potential use of force to preserve the “traditional American way of life,” compared to just 15 percent of Democrats.

Only 9 percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.”

The Second American Revolution – Patriots vs. Tyrants

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 55% of respondents say they are pessimistic about the direction of the country for the next 12 months. This is significant because it represents a nearly 20 percentage point drop in the same poll that was taken in May, when 36% of Americans were pessimistic and 64% were optimistic about the nation’s future. Declines in optimism were from Republicans, independents, and Democrats.

Conclusion

It is only a matter of time before there is a second American Revolution.

This new American Revolution will be between patriots and tyrants.

The goal of the tyrants is to destroy America as a Constitutional Republic. The goal of patriots is to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We are now seeing that the Democrat Party is a domestic enemy of the people.

The methodology of the tyrant is to rewrite history, e.g. Critical Race Theory, and literally tear down historical memorials to keep the young from understanding America’s true history, especially the American Revolution.

The more government tries to take control the more the people will push back against it.

Violence may be necessary to restore our freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.