Time for Twitter & Co to take responsibility for news — and lies

The censorship of Trump and Section 230 have far-reaching ramifications.


The events in Washington DC last Wednesday, and the subsequent permanent suspension by Twitter of the account @realDonaldTrump, throw into the spotlight the question of how responsible social-media companies are for the material that users post by the technical means that the companies provide.  They add urgency to a question that was already being raised:  should Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 be modified or repealed?

The critical part of Section 230 has been hailed as “the twenty-six words that created the Internet,” which is also the title of a book by Jeff Kosseff.  In case you’re wondering, the twenty-six words are: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

To see how these words apply to, for example, the thousands of tweets from President Trump, read “Twitter” for “provider. . . of an interactive computer service” and “President Trump” for “another information content provider”.

What this section did was to place the then-infant Internet in the category of common-carrier communications providers such as telephone companies, and not in the category of news providers such as the New York Times.  The traditional “old media” (newspapers, radio, TV) were regarded in law as the originators of what they printed or broadcast, and could be sued if their material proved libelous or otherwise harmful.  But if a blackmailer, for instance, called his victim on the phone and made a threat, the idea of suing the phone company because of the blackmailer’s actions would be regarded as ridiculous.

So for the next two decades or so, the industries spawned by the internet — notably Facebook, Twitter, Google, and their ilk — grew without concern for possibly crippling lawsuits regarding the content that their users posted.  Legally, it wasn’t their fault what people put on their sites, generally speaking.

Few people (or lawmakers, who are also people) anticipated that the main source of news and information for millions of US citizens would shift from the old-media world to the social-media world, but that is exactly what happened.  The techno-optimists who foresaw a brave new world of egalitarian news sharing have been disappointed to find that lies get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its pants.  (Neither Winston Churchill nor Mark Twain apparently wrote “the truth is still putting on its pants”, but it’s worth saying anyway. The author of it is unknown, but researchers have traced the saying back at least to the 1700s.)

In particular, the elaborate structure of lies coming from @realDonaldTrump since the November 3 Presidential election has convinced many millions of people that (a) the election results were manipulated by evil conspirators who managed to hide their tracks from everyone except a few off-the-wall news sources and President Trump himself, (b) President Trump actually won the election and deserves to be president for another four years, at least, and (c) the alternative is the end of America, as the evil Biden administration takes charge and sends us all straight to perdition in a wicker container.

After concocting increasingly incredible lawsuits challenging state vote counts, the President issued a call via Twitter for his followers to show up in Washington on January 6, when a joint session of Congress would count the Electoral College votes and certify the result.  He fraudulently claimed that Vice-President Pence had the power to discard the results and reinstate the President, whereas nowhere in the Constitution or elsewhere does the Vice-President receive this power.

But by the technique of saying lies and repeating them over and over in the echo chamber of the Internet where people who like certain kinds of material get more of it, the President drew a crowd of thousands to Washington last Wednesday.  He spoke to them in person in a long, inflammatory speech that repeated many of the lies he originated over the past two months, and then sent them down the street to disrupt, invade, and vandalize the building where the duly elected representatives of these United States were legally carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities.  And Twitter helped him do it.

On Friday, January 8, Twitter announced that it was permanently suspending @realDonaldTrump, citing that the President had violated their “Glorification of Violence policy”.  To those who would say that Twitter is violating the President’s freedom of speech, I would counter along with Justice Holmes that someone who is “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” has forfeited his right to free speech, at least with regard to that particular statement.  And the President has abundantly shown that he is incapable of tweeting without straying into falsehood sooner or later.

But in doing so, Twitter has admitted that they do indeed bear the responsibility for the effects of information provided by another information content provider.  In a world where the main source of news for the bulk of the public is social media, social media can no longer pretend that they are a small, insignificant, hobby-type operation that people use mainly for amusement and sharing cookie recipes.

They now play a critical, essential role in the conduct of public affairs, and their increasing censorship of one kind or another (of which the strangling of @realDonaldTrump is only the chief example) amounts to rump editing, essentially no different from what the ink-stained newspaper editors of yore did with their letters to the editor columns.  To choose one letter is to reject all the rest, and to censor one tweet is to accept all the rest.

I have no easy solution to the problem of Section 230, but it is clear that things cannot go on the way they are now.

As for President Trump, I hope that Congress has sense and guts enough to impeach him with the penalty of never holding a federal office again.  But social media firms cannot have it both ways.  They must not enjoy the financial and cultural benefits of being the main purveyors of news while shirking the responsibility for the news (and lies) that pass through their hands.

COLUMN BY

Karl D. Stephan

Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Has America become a ‘house divided’?

The unhappy son of a ‘keen’ Nazi fails to clear his father’s name

Celebrating a philosopher who would defend Wagner using Lady Gaga quotes

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

Our Institutions And Our Leaders Have Failed Us. Where Do We Go Now?

Millions of Republican activists in every state in the country are asking themselves, what can we do now?

All of our political lives we put our faith in our elections.

When we lost, we analyzed our mistakes and sought lessons for how next time to run a better campaign. When we won, we aspired to work with our former opponents for the betterment of the country. On both sides.

It’s what we’ve done in America for the past one hundred and sixty years.

Today it sounds quaint, but our differences ended at the nation’s shores. That quarantine around foreign policy and national security disputes dissolved during the Clinton years when deep divides over trade agreements and China split our country – not along party lines, but into globalists and what the global elites derisively termed the “nativists.”

Those “nativists” – the left-behinds of the Rust Belt, and those “old-fashioned” Americans derided by Obama for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” became the Deplorables that defeated Hillary Clinton and elected Donald Trump.

For four years, we watched with glowing expectation as our president actually fulfilled campaign promises. We watched as he stood up to Communist China, as he stripped away job-killing regulations, and as he faced down the global elites in the media and politics.

He spoke for us, not at us; and we were enthralled. We thought it could never end.

We watched Donald Trump’s popularity grow by leaps and bounds, while his opponent emerged from his basement to pathetic little gatherings of a few hundred people honking car horns.

Then came Trump’s massive election night victory, erased in the early morning hours and days to come by a flood of votes that seemed to have come out of nowhere.

I’ll wager that 75 million of us have followed pretty closely the drama of the past two months, so there’s no need to recount the claims and counterclaims of election fraud.

The Democrats can say what they want, and pound it into us with the sledgehammers of the national media and Big Tech: they still have failed to convince us that we are wrong.

It’s like that famous scene in the first Star Wars movie when Obiwan Kenobi waves his hand before the eyes of the Empire soldiers. The Democrats keep telling us, those are not the votes we are looking for. But unlike the Empire soldiers, we are not duped.

What we have seen over the past two months goes way beyond dismay or disbelief. What we have witnessed is the utter collapse of the foundational institutions of our republic.

The national GOP, to its credit, saw it coming. Starting early last year, they spent tens of millions of dollars to wage legal battles against Democrat party efforts to change the way our elections were conducted.

If you look at their list of “victories,” you would think the GOP had succeeded in courts across this country in preserving free and fair elections.

But you would be wrong.

They merely succeeded in defeating the outliers of the Democrat scheme, the outrageous bits they used to distract us, such as extending the vote for days and even weeks after Election Day. They didn’t care about that.

The GOP leadership failed to block – or missed entirely – the very real and illegal efforts by Democrat state officials, state courts, governors and non-profits to generalize mail-in ballots, hold ballot-harvesting “events” in public parks, and remove or weaken signature verification.

So well before the election, the GOP failed us. And the courts failed us.

The Republican-led state legislatures also failed us, by nonchalantly observing this multi-pronged attack by the Democrats to remove all the fail-safe mechanisms protecting voter integrity.

Many of us who watched the post-election testimony of Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Colonel Philip Waldron, Jovan Pulitzer and others before state legislative committees in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and elsewhere were heartened at what appeared to be the sympathetic response of Republican legislators.

Instead, we should have been appalled — because they should have known all this beforehand. They should have fixed these problems, restored the fail-safes and reasserted their constitutional authority while there was still time.

So well before the election and afterwards, the state legislatures failed us.

The sycophantic media didn’t fail us because they abandoned their duty to inform the public a generation ago when they became the communications arm of the Democrat party. Still, it shocked and dismayed many of us to watch Fox News join the Fake News media cabal on Election Night.

Justice, judges and their courts failed us after the elections on at least 62 occasions, never allowing a single evidentiary hearing with the cross-examination of witnesses who had provided sworn affidavits of election fraud they personally had observed in eight states.

Think of that. The media tells us there was “zero evidence” of election fraud, and now Nancy Pelosi and her Ministry of Truth wants to make acceptance of that lie a prerequisite to serving in Congress, while Big Tech is banning even ordinary citizens from their First Amendment rights for even questioning it.

We the People who pay taxes so others can cower in their basements in fear, We the Deplorables who still believe in truth, have stood back and observed as every institution of our democratic Republic has shriveled and apparently died.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the national media are trying to govern as a one-party state.

What fail-safes, if any, do we have left?

This is the anguished cry I hear from all across America. Are there enough Republican politicians with guts and imagination to keep us from tearing each other apart?

©Kenneth R. Timmerman. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Is America’s Future As BLEAK As It Looks? | Fmr. Rep. Doug Collins | Huckabee

Over 300K Trump supporters to join virtual ‘second inauguration’

More Extreme Than Obama: Webinar looks at Biden’s National Security Team

President-elect Joe Biden’s national security team is more radical than Obama’s was, with key members showing a lifetime of softness toward Communist China, Iran, radical Islamists, and Russia.

The Center’s J. Michael Waller and John Rossomando went down the list of Biden’s announced appointees in a January 13 webinar titled “More Extreme than Obama: Biden’s National Security team will Fundamentally Form American Sovereignty.” Here is some of what they discussed:

Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense-designate. The retired four-star general ran the US Central Command (CENTCOM) that covers the Middle East and North Africa lacks the fame and distinction as the previous general to run the Pentagon, James Mattis, and isn’t known as a military strategist. His brusque management style might complicate how he leads the Department of Defense.

Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State-designate. Blinken has a long relationship with Biden and former secretary of state John Kerry, dating to when they both were senators. When Biden was vice president, Blinken was his national security advisor. He played a big role in the Obama debacle in northern Iraq that gave birth to ISIS, and became in charge of Obama’s worldwide refugee program. He was also Managing Director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, which was founded by Communist China.

William Burns, CIA Director-designate was a secret back-channel for Obama to Iran during the Iran Deal.

Avril Haines, designated to be Director of National Intelligence, was legal counsel to the Obama National Security Council at a time when the Obama NSC was spying on American political rivals of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and during the framing of the debunked “Russian collusion” narrative. Biden’s transition team website makes a big deal of the fact that Haines is a woman.

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security-designate. His first qualification, the Biden website says, is that if confirmed, Mayorkas “would be the first immigrant and Latino to lead the Department of Homeland Security.” Not once, but twice. Mayorkas ran immigration at the Obama DHS while Blinken was running the global refugee program at State. He is considered extremely weak on immigration and likely to pack immigrants into the United States once again, without regard to their impact on, or benefit to, American society.

Samantha Power, Administrator-designate, US Agency for International Development. A former NSC staffer to Obama, Power became a capable but controversial ambassador to the United Nations. She stresses large-scale funding and programs to change the cultures and values of traditional societies and earned the nickname “Unmasker-in-Chief” for being behind the exposure of the identities of Americans whose names were picked up in foreign intelligence collection. Power’s politically-motivated unmasking requests – considered very unusual for an ambassador to the UN – became pretexts for some of the most controversial abuses of the Obama-Biden administration.

An especially controversial if obscure Biden appointee, Thomas Zimmerman, reportedly is to become Special Assistant to the President for Personnel. Zimmerman is presently on the transition team vetting national security appointments. He brings some baggage with him to the White House, having held a position at the Shanghai Academy of Sciences, a Chinese Communist Party organization that the FBI has described as a “front group for Chinese intelligence collection and overseas spy recruitment.”

Waller and Rossomando discussed other Biden appointees, ending with one who will not be part of the national security team at all: Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, slated to become Secretary of Labor. Walsh drew notoriety last year by flying the Communist China flag at Boston City Hall.

COLUMN BY

J. Michael Waller

J. Michael Waller is Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy. His areas of concentration are propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion. He is the former Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington, DC. A former instructor with the Naval Postgraduate School, he is an instructor/lecturer at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg. 

Takeout Only | How California Elites Crushed LA’s Local Restaurants

It was a dark winter for most small business owners across America, but Los Angeles County in particular was decimated by draconian lockdown measures right before the holidays. The county shut down both indoor and outdoor dining as of Nov. 25, allowing restaurants to only use takeout to feed their customers.

The Daily Caller’s Jorge Ventura traveled across the county talking to restaurant owners who are barely able to keep their lights on. The documentary tracks the gradual escalation of lockdown measures and their impact on small businesses. We also shed light on California’s bureaucrats breaking their lockdown measures, and their apparent indifference to those suffering under policies they imposed.

Los Angeles County put a ban on outdoor dining the week of Thanksgiving impacting 30,000 restaurants in the county. More than 110,000 restaurants across the country are set to close permanently or long-term, according to the National Restaurant Association. California was the first state in March to issue a state wide stay-at-home order and since then restaurants have had to adjust to some of the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in the country.

“We were expecting a lot of sports and revenue to come in but that all shut down” Dave Foldes, the owner of Cronies Sports Grill in Southern California said about the state wide stay-at-home order issued in March. “We were limited to just takeout and delivery and our business does not do well with that is a very small part of our business.”

Foldes has decided to defy the outdoor dining ban and has continued to serve his customers. According to Foldes, he has been fined $500 everyday to defy the outdoor dining ban by LA County Public Health. “This whole thing started because the last we’re going to do is lay people off during the Christmas holiday” said Foldes on why he decided to defy the county’s orders that ban restaurants, bars and breweries from serving outdoors. “I can’t see laying them off, they need money for the holidays.”

The ban on outdoor dining has forced many restaurants and breweries like Ravens Nest and Bravery Brewing in LA County to layoff employees during the holidays as they adjust to takeout-only service. “Furloughing our staff, pivoting and for the first time in our company’s history having to find a way to discount our beer so we can through all of it in a timely fashion.”

WATCH:

COLUMN BY

JORGE VENTURA

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

LA Judge Leaves Outdoor Dining Ban In Place But Demands To See Evidence Supporting The Policy

18-Year-Old Exposes Her Parents On Twitter For Attending Capitol Riots

Two Off-Duty Cops Charged In Capitol Riots; One Allegedly Bragged He ‘Attacked The Government’

‘I Am Not A Traitor’: Retired Navy Seal Defends His Involvement In Capitol Riots

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

VIDEO: When The Wicked Seize a Nation

©Bill Finley. All rights reserved.

Wasted Lives

The Muslim Brotherhood produced The Project, a document that contains its plan for radical Islam to infiltrate and dominate the west.  Among their aspirations is to make “Palestinians” a cause célèbre, and to instigate a constant campaign of inciting hatred against Jews, by any means. As a member of BDS (Boycott Divestment, Sanctions) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine), Susan Abulhawa, a jihada, advocates the economic and civilizational destruction of Israel.  The inexact and skewed information in her book, Mornings in Jenin, is Da’wa, a strategy of silent jihad, designed to delegitimize Israel and invite Muslims to accept Islam as a peaceful religion.

Following their Prophet, Muslims may never accept the world’s transformation after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and birth of Israel.  To delegitimize Israel, they must maintain that Palestine and Palestinians have always existed, yet there is no documentation of any governance, language, customs, currency, artifacts, or date and cause of its demise.  These are Bedouin Arabs descended from nomads of the Arabian Peninsula and Syrian Desert living in Judea and Samaria, who yielded to the armies’ directions and were then abandoned, leaving their abused, traumatized children to wage jihad – Holy War.  Abulhawa’s book follows the lives of four generations of the fictional terrorist family of Yehya Mohammad Abulheja.

In each generation, the Abulheja family is bound to wage jihad and establish their god’s authority on the earth. “The Holy War (Islamic Jihad) in Islamic Jurisprudence is basically an offensive war. . . the duty of Muslims in every age . . .”  This story’s oldest generation, Grandfather Yehya traces his ties to the land since 1189, AD, its founding attributed to a general of Saladin’s.  Had he gone further back, he’d have discovered a Jewish Kingdom that lasted for thousands of years, beginning with the reign of King Saul, 11th c. BCE.  Had he gone forward, he’d have had to contend with the Saladin dynasty’s conquest by the Mamluks.

In 1953, Yehya dons his newly whitened clothes and his Bedouin kafiyyah.  As an aside, I recognize this as the same attire worn by U.S. Army Major Hasan on his murderous rampage at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.  Despite his son’s plea to stay, Yehya leaves Jenin refugee camp for Ein Hod, returning with olives and fruit from property he owned years before.  On his second foray, he is killed by residents of the artists’ colony, hailed as a martyr as his body is returned to his home by the Red Crescent.  The author is deceptive with half-truths.  Yehye did not have his clothes whitened for harvest.  His first trip would have been an investigative mission.  Though not disclosed, we can be certain that he was armed for his second venture, dressed for holy war, and prepared to die as a shahada, a martyr.

The next generation is his two sons.  Darweesh is the first to meet beautiful Dalia, the 14-year-old Gypsy Bedouin, but her father prohibits the clandestine relationship and, to enforce his point, puts a hot iron to the palm of her hand, warning her not to scream or cry.  She pulls her pain inward.  In Islamic reality, her hand would have been chopped off or her father would have murdered her for his honor.  Dr. Tawfik Hamid explains the severe suppression of conscience and desensitization to or acceptance of violence without remorse, as displayed by Dalia’s father.

Before long, Yehya’s other son, Hasan, announces he will marry Dalia.  His mother blames the Zionists for his not accepting the family’s choice of bride and for the world’s turmoil.

Hasan’s best friend is Ari Perlstein who, with his parents, fled Germany in 1937, after his leg was permanently injured by a Brownshirt.  Ten years later, the author predictably uses Ari’s Jewish voice to announce that the Jews are heavily armed and on the attack.  Factually, Britain embargoed weapons for Jewish forces and surrendered strategic locations and arms to the Arab Liberation Army for Palestine.

Thousands of Jews arrived on the shores of what was then called Palestine.  Having survived torture, starvation and disease, the loss of loved ones and belongings, the war-damaged Holocaust refugees wanted only to return to their G-d-ordained sliver of land, two-tenths of one percent of the Islamic landmass. Ill-equipped to fight five armies with the remnants of WW II munitions, they suffered huge losses.

War is upheaval.  Those who reached Israel had to again fight for their survival.  By the 1948 War’s end, 400,000+ Arabs flee the area and 450,000 Jews flee Arab lands. Abulhawa’s information is deficient.

The Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected recommendations of the special UN General Assembly in November 1947.  When the British withdrew, the Arabs attacked the new state of Israel on May 14, 1948.  Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha announced, “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre,” and Israel launched a (retaliatory) massive artillery and aerial bombardment of villages, which Abulhawa, in her fiction, mischaracterizes.  More than 400,000 Arabs heeded their leaders and evacuated, expecting to return victoriously.  The 1947 UN resolution would have meant two states, no refugees, and full and equal citizenship in Israel.  Cairo called for Holy War.

In her novel, as the Israelis enter Ein Hod, Arab families flee on foot and with carts.  Hasan carries five-year-old Yousef while Dalia follows, carrying  baby Ismail, when he is swiftly ripped from her arms.  She screams her deepest agony, but he is lost to them forever.  The author conjures up an Israeli soldier, Moshe, who “believes himself on a mission from G-d” and “envious” of the Arab women’s many children.  He impulsively snatches Ismail and flees home to his wife Jolanta, who’d been made barren by Nazi cruelty.  She embraces the child and names him David.  The author, in a moment of “creative genius,” calls the baby’s discerning feature, a scar on his cheek from a protruding crib nail, “the scar of David.”

The logicality of a soldier carrying a baby while dutifully looting the village with his unit is more than ludicrous; it is a case of projection.  It was Mohammed’s warriors who kidnapped for slavery, conversion, and booty.  Realistically, Moshe and Jolanta would have welcomed one of the many parentless children who were brought to Israel.

Considering her father’s brutality, her shock by an explosion and minor leg injury, and the kidnapping of her six-month-old son, Dalia begins displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.  She rallies with the birth of her daughter, Amal, in 1955, but gradually sinks into dementia, as her husband and first-born Yousef join the wars.  Dalia eventually becomes unraveled, needing Amal’s constant care, and dies before Amal turns 14.

Returning to real facts, in 1966, Soviet Intelligence incorrectly reported Israel’s imminent campaign against Syria, heightening tensions and causing fledgling Palestinian guerilla groups to increase in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and Israel retaliated in the Jordanian West Bank in November.  On May 14, 1967, Abdel Nasser mobilized Egyptian forces in the Sinai, requested that UNEF (UN Emergency Forces) leave, and, joined by Jordan and Iraq, blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping. To the endless overt threats, Israel launched a preemptive assault against Egyptian and Syrian air forces on June 5, and captured Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

In the fictional account, Hasan mobilizes to defend against Zionist aggression, and that contrary to reason and truth, Israel singlehandedly attacks Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.  After removing his cache of 20 weapons from beneath the kitchen floorboards, Hasan and Yousef leave the twelve-year-old Amal and her friend Huda behind, hidden under the floor, with only each other for comfort through the terrifying sounds of war.  It is this act that haunts Yousef for the rest of his life, the guilt that he was unable to stay and comfort them as they trembled until the bombing abated.  Abulhawa fails to perceive that these children are steeped in dread, their lives consumed with war and death.

Part Two

1967: Despite being outnumbered, Israel regained Judea and Samaria.  In the story, when Yousef returns briefly, he tells Amal that he has seen a scarred Israeli soldier, undoubtedly their lost brother Ismail, called David.  David hears his own friend remark about their likeness, and Moshe is burdened with his secret, admitting it to David only on his deathbed, begging forgiveness.  He is haunted by Dalia’s cries, the awful evictions, killings and rapes.

The rape accusation is projection, customarily a Muslim action against their enemy’s women.  Islam teaches and justifies violence against women.  Quran 2:223, “Women are your fields, go, then unto your fields when and how you please.”  Quran 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power . . . to strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of God.”  Islamic rape is steeped in hatred and vengeance. Jihadis are trained to dehumanize and inflict great physical harm on women, one method being Taharrush.  Islamic apartheid also fosters rape of boys by older men “of status,” an age-old, self-perpetuating Islamic practice of humiliation and emasculation.

Strangely, in 2017, an anti-Israel activist declared that Israelis are racist because they don’t rape Palestinian women!  Notwithstanding military purpose, Israelis pursue a high moral culture, attested by Colonel Richard Kemp.  All capable Israeli youths are required to serve in the armed forces, re-enter society to become devoted spouses and parents, and contribute to their country’s growth.

Abulhawa has her creation, Amal, riding through Jerusalem and witnessing the destruction of ancient houses, but omits clarifying that this is not senseless injustice, but Israel’s way of punishing residents responsible for deadly terrorist attacks.

It is 1982, and the author brings her family to the next accusation, that Israel provoked the PLO to strike.  The historical facts are that Israel had been  harassed, shelled, attacked and raided by PLO guerrillas in Lebanon, a major component of the Lebanese Civil War, which triggered Syria’s intervention and limited occupation.  Israel provoked the PLO actions that would justify their full-scale invasion of Lebanon, in order to bomb the PLO targets in Beirut and southern Lebanon, headquarters for 14,000 armed fighters.

In August, the Christian Phalangist militia, the PLO’s bitter enemies, massacred as many as 3,500 Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians in Sabra and Shatila, 400,000 made homeless, infrastructure devastated.  Women and children were evacuated to Lebanon, the PLO exiled to Tunisia.  Had there been no raid, the Palestinians would have continued their homicidal jihad unimpeded.  The author appears to be lacking in understanding.

Amal, now living in Philadelphia, receives a call from her brother, Yousef, screaming vengeance for the massacre in both refugee camps.  He screams that his wife and daughter have been killed, as was Amal’s husband, Majid.    Amal gives birth to Sara, and suffers from depression, remaining a traumatized, emotionally distant mother, as Dalia had been.

Amal is next contacted by her long-lost brother Ismail, now called David, who has come to America to meet his sister for the first time, and the author has a field day inventing unfound slurs against Israel.  David is convinced that “Israel is a lie,” and that “Palestinians paid the price for the Jewish Holocaust,”  the author’s vicious trope.   No.  Palestinians are paying the “price” for Mohammed’s desire for world triumph and the  Palestinian all-or-nothing conquest strategy, with a strong faction that is unable to live in peace. The women suffer desperately for their inferior position in Islamic societies.  Amal and David promise to meet again soon.

Amal and 19-year-old Sara visit “Palestine” and are met by David and his son, Jacob.  They visit Dr. Ari Perlstein who suggests that Hasan was killed in the 1967 war and that Yousef bombed the US embassy in 1983.  Amal sees the “Judaizing of Jerusalem,” never alluding to Jerusalem’s (Yerushalayim in Hebrew) being one of the oldest cities in the world, est. 4th millennium BCE), and the religious and administrative center of the Kingdom of Judah in 10th C BCE.

The four continue their drive to Jenin, population 45,000, an infamous den of terror, and visit Huda, whose husband and mute son, Mansour, were taken by Israelis for terrorist activities.  Suicide bombings and attacks had been increasing in intensity, followed by two Israeli incursions, arrests, demolitions and curfews.  They hear destruction of nearby homes and buildings, proving the Israeli policy of bulldozing homes of terrorists, when an Israeli soldier enters this terrorist home, aims his weapon at Sara and Amal runs to take the bullet.   Amal is killed.

Israel had endured approximately 16 bombings, many of them suicide attacks.  Following the Battle of Jenin, in 2002, however, there were cries worldwide of massacre and genocide, when Israel conducted two waves of incursions with ground troops, helicopters, tanks, and fighter jets.  Of the camps’ 15,000 residents, 25 terrorists, 26 civilians, and 25 IDF soldiers were killed, far fewer than the thousands killed in Kosovo by Muslims or from the suicide bombing at an Israeli hotel (28 killed, 140 injured) by Palestinians.  The IDF were ambushed with explosive devices in the Jenin homes and on the roads, and women helped to lure the soldiers into traps.

The next generation will live in Philadelphia.  Sara and Jacob return to her mother’s home in Philadelphia, and Mansour, Huda’s only surviving son, will join them while also studying art.  Yousef to remain unidentified and kill no more. Still, this author’s inaccuracies or misinformation, accusations, and slander, are stealth jihad, intended to encourage violent jihad.  The ambition of a depraved warlord of the 5th century continues to waste the lives of Muslims and their victims in the 21st century.

After visiting Israel, John LeCarre wisely said, “No nation on earth was more deserving of peace — or more condemned to fight for it.”

©Tabitha Korol. All rights reserved.

The Final Attacks On Trump Are Aimed At Trump Supporters

President Trump’s remarks last Thursday were everything anyone could want out of an American President following Wednesday’s Capitol mob. As presidential as presidential comes, as have been his following statements. Exactly what the coastal media glitterati have been clamoring for.

But it doesn’t mean a wit to the Democrat leaders and media howling for Trump’s head since November 2016, who even with only 12 days left in his presidency are screaming at the sky for impeachment or the 25th Amendment, completely out of touch with reality and certainly disconnected from what would be good for America. Healing? Please. What Democrat leaders ultimately still want is submission. Submission from Trump supporters. Submission from Republicans. Deleting President Trump’s personal Twitter and Facebook accounts started the wave of purges of conservatives on censor media platforms.

What is driving all of this is what is key. Sure, there is vitriolic hatred of Trump. But it always has been, and remains, a growing, deep disdain for the America that Trump and the emerging GOP represents. Working Americans. Middle class Americans. Traditionalist Americans. Religious Americans. Non-college Americans. Skilled trades Americans. Flyover Americans. Deplorables, in a word.

I know there are exceptions to this among my Democrat and media friends. And I still have many of both, though our divisions increase the strain and the tribalism. But those exceptions are among basic voters who are Democrat, not the hard-core Democrat and leadership. As it pertains to Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C., in the media, in academia, in Hollywood, in public education, in the permanent bureaucratic state.

It was the Democrat leadership in Congress that officially changed House rules to the most idiotic form of woke speech, eliminating all genders and replacing them with vomitous nonsense. From Aunt Mary to Parent’s Sibling Mary and so on. It was the same leadership that brought in a man who ended the opening Congressional session prayer with amen and awomen. My rank-and-file Democrat friends agreed those were stupid and wrong. But my friends are not Democratic leaders.

It’s the same leadership that still wants to institute the Green New Deal, which is a fantasy that would turn to a dystopian nightmare. Sheer insanity, unhinged from reality. This is not about tax rates or health care coverage or level of military spending or even abortion; those traditional differences between right and left. This is something terribly different from the Democratic Party.

That’s why the Democrat direction is more and more frequently associated with radical elitists, not regular Democrats, certainly not old-line Democrats. Trump represented the opposite of those elitist interests — and they despised him because of those he represents. “They” in this case are an amalgamation of the extremists like AOC, the power-crazed like Nancy Pelosi, the dishonest media and the entrenched permanent staters protecting their turf, such as James Comey and Andrew McCabe.

So the culmination at the Capitol is blamed by all those folks solely on Trump. But while his incautious language on the day of the event was not helpful, it was obviously not incitement. The reaction is so much bigger than Trump, and growing. But the incalculably damaging actions of a handful last week will allow Democrats and the media to ignore the underlying dynamic.

Trump realized it is bigger than him with his speech following the mob actino, which was pitch perfect and needed. But it is irrelevant because in the end, as we will see in coming months and years, it was never about Trump in the end. He was just the willing lightning rod.

None of the “elites” have made any attempt to understand what the hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators last week represented. By Democrats and the media focusing on the few who acted illegally and should be prosecuted, just like BLM and Antifa should be — people that Democrats frequently defended — they will perpetuate the two Americas. Maybe that is actually what they want. I doubt it is what most Democrats want. I know it is not what Republicans want. But perhaps open warfare on the supporters of their political opponents is precisely their goal.

Learning no lessons, making no attempt to understand, will doom us to deepening the divides and repeating this terrible dynamic with worse and worse outcomes. Because they are not seeking unity or reconciliation in any way other than complete submission.

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

VIDEO: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to Introduce Articles Of Impeachment Against Biden On January 21st

At least one Republican understands that there is more than enough evidence of collusion with China, a quid pro quo with Ukraine, Hunter Biden’s laptop and 2020 election fraud to call for the impeachment of Joe Biden. Her name is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

QUESTION: Will all other Republicans in Congress stand with her in calling for articles of impeachment?

Americans understand that Biden deserves an impeachment hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives. More so than any other politician in American history.

WATCH:

Resist the Mainstream reported:

Newly-elected Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Wednesday that she plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Joe Biden on January 21.

“I would like to announce on behalf of the American people, we have to make sure that our leaders are held accountable,” Greene told Newsmax TV anchor Greg Kelly. “We cannot have a president of the United States that is willing to abuse the power of the office of the presidency and be easily bought off by foreign governments, Chinese energy companies, Ukrainian energy companies. So on January 21, I will be filing articles of impeachment on Joe Biden.”

Kelly pointed to Greene’s minority-party status to ask whether the move was “symbolic” or something Republicans could really pull off.

Read more.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Quarter of Americans believe it’s time for U.S. to split into separate red, blue countries

I’m all for a separate new country, “New American Testament” in the spirit of the founding.

Writing in The Federalist, Jesse Kelly in April this year likened America to a couple that can’t stop fighting and should get a divorce. Literally. His proposal was to split the country into two new ones: a ‘red’ state and a ‘blue’ state.

On a map accompanying the article, he proposed a division of the U.S. into the People’s Republic of Soyland and the Federalist States of America (no prizes for guessing Mr Kelly’s politics).

It’s a fairly crude map. For example, it includes Republican-leaning states such as Montana and the Dakotas in the ‘blue’ state for seemingly no other reason than to provide a corridor between the blue zones in the west and east of the country.

Mr Kelly admitted that his demarcational talents left some room for improvement: “We can and will draw the map and argue over it a million different ways for a million different reasons but draw it we must,” he wrote. “I suspect the final draft would look similar (to mine).” ……. more

Quarter of Americans believe it’s time for U.S. to split into separate red, blue countries

Proposals have called for essentially giving Democrats and Republicans their separate states and countries.

By Daniel Payne, Just the News, January 13, 2021 – 12:39am

A sizable percentage of U.S. voters support a proposal to split the country into two separate countries — amid bitter political divides, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.

Twenty-five percent of respondents back “splitting the red states and blue states into separate countries.”

A very solid majority, 62%, oppose such a measure.

Political divisions in the U.S. have become even more bitter and divided in the wake of the 2020 election, won by Democrat Joe Biden in a close contest and amid concerns about voting irregularities in the U.S.’s election process.

To see this poll’s cross-demographic tabulations, click here.

To see this poll’s methodology and sample demographics, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Rep. to Introduce Impeachment Articles Against Biden

Watch: Pelosi, Who Pushed for ‘Non-Gendered Language’ Rules, Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

GOP Reps Propose Bill That Would Let Censored Citizens Sue Facebook, Twitter

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report Column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.F

PODCAST: AWoman?

As most of you have heard by now, at the opening of the 117th Congress on Sunday, January 3rd, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who also happens to be a United Methodist pastor, was asked to do the invocation at the start of the meeting, as is customary. However, he surprised a lot of people when he ended his prayer by saying “Amen and Awomen.” Awomen? I think this was done by design, not by accident, nor was it intended to be a joke. At first, this triggered a lot of puns, such as “A-moron,” and “Maniac” vs. “Wo-maniac,” and I’m sure we’ll hear many more in the days ahead.

The term “Amen” is gender neutral and is an ancient expression used by the Israelites to mean “it is true” or “so be it.” Frankly, “Awomen” is a nonsense word without meaning. Trying to introduce gender into the description simply doesn’t make sense.

There is something more sinister going on here. As part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) agenda for the new Congress, she introduced and passed legislation to eliminate what the Democrats consider gender-specific terms, such as: “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half-sister, grandson, or granddaughter.”

I interpret this as a refutation of the family unit. Are they trying to make us feel ashamed of our mother, father, and all our other relatives? Instead, the Speaker proposes to use more “inclusive” terms, such as, “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.” This is just plain silly, and something I certainly will not be adopting.

This reminds me of the Coneheads from Saturday Night Live who described themselves as “Parental Units” to their daughter Connie. Then again, the Coneheads introduced a lot of terms the Democrats would embrace, such as “Zythron the Insistent” (to supplant American historical figures), “Fiberglass” (something people like to bite), “consuming mass quantities” (of beer and eggs, a well balanced source of food), and of course “France” (a deceptive reference to their true love and home planet, “Remulak.”)

Is the Speaker suggesting the Ten Commandments is wrong when it states, “Honour thy father and thy mother”? Is she saying we should change it to “Honour thy Parental Units”? Maybe Democrats are nothing more than Coneheads in disguise. I am also confused on how she should be addressed; e.g., “Mister or Madam Speaker”? Perhaps, “Transgen Speaker”? How about her personal life, is she “Mr. or Mrs. Pelosi” or even “Ms.”?

Seriously, now that the Democrats are in control of the government, they are stepping up their war on American culture. This will include attacks on religion, history, vocabulary, family, race, and any group or person opposing their agenda. All of this is intended is to keep Americans in line, suppress independent thought, and promote Socialism.

As for me, I’ll borrow an expression from the late, great George M. Cohen, “My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, my sister thanks you, and I thank you.”

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.

Twitter Reaches Hypocritical Mass

Twitter is opposed to government’s restricting speech; maybe it is because they don’t want competition. In a development that is adding more fuel to the fires against Big Tech, Jack Dorsey’s company made the astonishingly bad PR move to tweet about the situation in Uganda. In what comes across as delusional, Twitter tried to position itself as a champion of open debate, posting (to the astonishment of pretty much everyone), “Ahead of the Ugandan election, we’re hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps. We strongly condemn internet shutdowns — they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights, and the principles of the open internet.”

Yes, Twitter, the king of conservative censorship, wielder of the all-powerful on/off switch, had the nerve to actually write that. Days after permanently stripping the president of the free world’s account — a move that even Europe’s progressives couldn’t believe — Dorsey’s company has the audacity to air on the side of “open internet” in a country 8,000 miles away. “The gall!” was all New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari could say. “Pre-election freedom of information for Ugandans. But not for readers of America’s oldest daily newspaper, The New York Post.” Truly, our friend Allie Stuckey shook her head, “They think you’re stupid.”

Unfortunately for Jack Dorsey and the rest of Big Tech’s oligarchs, we’re not. “A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech,” the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, argued. “West Coast high tech has to make the distinction between banning hate speech and banning speech it hates.” So far, Dorsey’s posse hasn’t had much motivation to do so — but that is changing, critics warn, and fast.

In Europe, where countries have never cared much for free speech and find themselves father down the path of radicalism, leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel described the banning of Trump “problematic.” Others, like Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, were quite blunt that what Silicon Valley had done is “an unacceptable act.” “Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.” Not to mention, he tacks on with potent truth, “I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone.”

How far has America come in one week, if even the nations where free speech isn’t cherished are surprised? Have we actually managed to leapfrog Europe and Asia in this social media freefall? Even the ACLU felt compelled to put a stake in the ground. “We understand the desire to permanently suspend [Trump] now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” the organization’s statement read. In other words: what goes around, comes around.

“Democrats celebrating censorship, and social media companies flaunting their decisions with specious justifications, should be wary. The very same desire to silence a political opponent will come for them. And the tech giants trying to please the party in charge just backed a move that puts their political future in jeopardy,” Jason Rantz warns them. The Jack Dorseys and Mark Zuckerbergs may think they hold all the power, but a Big Tech reckoning is coming. And when it does, no amount of leftist election pandering will save them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Twitter Is The Worst Company On Planet Earth. Here’s How To Bet Against The Stock— and Deactivate Your Account.

BigTech Monopoly Refuses to Let Conservatives Pass Go

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Dems Practice What They Impeach

Liberals are nothing if not reliable. It’s been 13 years since Barack Obama’s chief of staff sat down with ABC and declared, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Rahm Emanuel’s party has lived and died by those words through two administrations, taking advantage of every situation to push an agenda that no one would even consider under normal circumstances. We’ve seen it with the coronavirus, the election process, voting laws, and now the Capitol riot. In every challenge, every catastrophe, Democrats prove: they don’t want to help America. They want to exploit it to help themselves. And this impeachment is no exception.

People will debate for years whether Donald Trump’s speech on the National Mall was actually incitement. A lot of constitutional scholars, including some who openly despise the president, say no. But the technicalities have never mattered to House Democrats. They see an opportunity. Not to heal the divide or preserve the Republic, but to power and control. Of course, the irony is, Democrats have been trying to get Trump out of office before he ever got in. “Now,” Byron York says, “they’re proposing to remove him from office after he leaves office.” As Congressman Michael Burgess (R-S.C.) lamented on “Washington Watch,” “This has been a time that has sort of defied prediction.”

He, like every other person who genuinely loves America, was sick over what happened under the Capitol dome last Wednesday. But Burgess also understands that our country didn’t arrive there by accident. Americans had lived through a year of depression, lockdowns, death, and uncertainty. By the time the election rolled around, our entire democratic system had been upended. On the morning of November 4, voters woke up to see an inexplicable surge of votes in key states had put Joe Biden ahead. Allegations of fraud and irregularities started streaming in — which no court or state official seemed willing to pursue. Suddenly, the people who felt understood and heard by this president felt everything he worked for slip away.

As a result of that horrible day, a lawless, violent siege that cost five people their lives, the Left has every pretense they need to finish the job they started. “The riot was an accelerant for what was already likely planned under Democratic rule in Washington: crushing dissenters from its leftist orthodoxy, as part of an effort to achieve total power…” Ben Weingarten warns. The end game for Democrats is not Trump. The end game is all of us. “They’re coming for me, because I’m fighting for you,” the president was fond of saying.

At the end of the day, this impeachment isn’t about banning the president from running for office again. “If that were all, the revenge agenda would be loathsome enough,” Michael Goodwin agrees. “But Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and their co-conspirators in Big Media and Big Tech are proving Trump was right when he said his supporters were the ultimate target.”

While the repressive hand of the Democrats and their Big Tech allies will only fan the flames of resentment and hostility, it may very well leave many of those who voted for Biden on the promise unity and healing questioning their vote. Surely today’s spectacle, an exercise in reckless, selfish, retaliation, isn’t what they signed up for. Not only does it destroy their trust that Democrats can be the adults in the room, but it exposes them for the hypocrites they are. Men and women like Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) are blaming Trump for starting an “insurrection.” They argue that the senators and congressmen operating within their constitutional rights to object to the election results should “resign.”

Where were they in 2000, 2004, and 2016 when Democrats protested the presidential results in battleground states “Thirty-one Democrats voted to overturn the presidential election results in Ohio in 2005,” Rachel Bovard tweeted. Ten of them are still in Congress. They serve beside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who herself insisted in 2017, “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect democracy and follow the facts.” What about the violence Democrats called for against the president and his supporters? “Get up in their face!” “Be ready to throw a punch!” “Push them,” “Kick them,” “Fight him in the streets!” And that’s on top of the looting, burning, and rioting they all condoned in the summer.

The Left lives in a swamp of hypocrites. They say they want to bring civility back. But who can watch what unfolded today and believe it? No one is saying Trump is blameless. What they are saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop using these crisis points to sow further resentment, division, and turmoil.

Why am I voting against impeachment, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) answered? “To lower the temperature.” “Look, the fact [is], we’ve only got 10 days left, and the priority we need to be engaging in is unifying the country, not escalating things further.” His new colleague, freshman Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) agreed, insisting that if Congress is looking for the people responsible for this toxic climate, they all need to look in the mirror. “There is violence on both sides of the aisle,” she said. “We’ve contributed to it. We need to… take responsibility for it — and stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.”

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action video and column are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Lockdowns: An Abortion Argument

David G. Bonagura, Jr.: COVID restrictions have exposed the privacy/liberty “right” to abort as what’s it always been: an arbitrary government edict.


The irony is sickening. For decades we have heard the shrieks in defense of abortion and birth control: “Keep the government out of my uterus!” “My body, my choice!” “No woman can call herself free,” said Margaret Sanger, “who does not control her own body.”

Democratic politicians have long supported abortion with this line of reasoning. Most recently, in signing the Reproductive Health Act into law in 2019, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo declared that “women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.” Out West, seeking codification of Roe v. Wade into the laws of California, Oregon, and Washington, Governors Newsom, Brown, and Inslee, in a joint letter, defined “reproductive choice” as “the right to make private decisions about one’s body,” and asserted that to intrude upon that choice “is a fundamental violation of individual liberty and freedom.”

Flash forward to 2020. These same governors have imposed the most restrictive measures in the nation to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Suddenly, the right to control one’s own body is no longer sacrosanct; individual liberty, touted so righteously just a year earlier, must now be curbed. These governors, along with others, have ordered their citizens to mask their faces, to limit the number of people in their homes, not to worship God in churches, not to exercise their bodies in gyms. In short, they have swiftly and systematically deprived their citizens of the very same “fundamental right to control their own bod[ies]” that they celebrate under another banner.

How far will this encroachment go? In New York, the governor decreed that food must be served in order to purchase alcohol. When one bar started offering “Cuomo Chips” as the plat du jour, the governor countered by mandating that “a substantial amount of food” must go into one’s body to drink alcohol.

Then, in October, New York released its “Mirco-Cluster Strategy” that sets thresholds at which schools must issue mandatory COVID tests to students. In essence, the government is forcing school personnel to poke into the bodies of minors, without their parents’ present. If parents object to testing their kids, the students are barred from attending school.

How can these “champions” of the right to control one’s body justify their blatant hypocrisy?

“COVID is a different matter,” they would surely say in reply. “We are protecting public health. With these measures we are saving lives.”

So we ask: in order to be consistent, shouldn’t the government ban abortion, if saving lives is so important?

We would then hear a sermon asserting women’s right to privacy, since abortion supporters must quickly shift the conversation away from the humanity of the child in utero. Advocating killing is seldom a winning argument. So they change the topic, masking abortion’s grim reality with the rhetoric of freedom, choice, and privacy.

Which returns the governors to their dilemma: How can the choice to have an abortion be protected under the penumbras of privacy but the choice of who comes over for Thanksgiving and Christmas be restricted for reasons of public health?

The governors, though, have lined up for yet another merry-go round ride. “If we don’t act now we’ll continue to see our death rate climb,” said Governor Newsom. Preventing the death of children in utero, it seems by extension, is not state interest. The message is clear: a government purportedly so concerned with saving lives has decided that only some lives are worth saving.

The severity and swiftness with which these governors have imposed COVID restrictions expose just how specious the abortion argument is. Its legality hinges entirely on an act of raw government power. We knew this in the past, but now, thanks to COVID, we feel it on our faces and up our noses. The government cannot with a straight face say that women can control their bodies when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to going to school.

Abortion has never been about privacy or liberty. Unlike COVID prescriptions, outlawing abortion requires no intrusion into women’s lives or bodies, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, abortion prevents the normal and healthy process of pregnancy from continuing – an odd choice when we are told that health is the government’s top priority. In fact, abortion is about ensuring that the sexual revolution has no consequences, and for this the government has declared it a compelling state interest.

To assert a “right to control one’s body” where it does not exist, as Roe did in legalizing abortion, is a lie. To continue to defend abortion on these same grounds while intruding into private homes and into the bodies of citizens to stop the pandemic transforms a lie into hypocrisy. “But COVID is different!” – is no defense at all. If the government wants to suspend livelihoods and poke into bodies to protect life, it has no choice but to protect all life, from womb to tomb.

The discussion now has to shift back to the humanity of the child in utero, where the governors and abortion supporters do not want to go. The “right to control one’s body” on the grounds of privacy and personal liberty argument has been exposed as an arbitrary government edict. We can then turn to science, which the governors claim to honor, but regularly flout, to finish the discussion, since science shows that a new human life begins at conception and is, therefore, unequivocally on the pro-life side.

COLUMN BY

David G Bonagura, Jr.

David G. Bonagura Jr. teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York. He is the author of Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism (Cluny Media).

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

ELECTION FRAUD: San Antonio Election Democrat Arrested for Widespread Vote Harvesting and Fraud

Stolen.

A woman has been arrested in connection to alleged election fraud and illegal voting, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Wednesday.

According to Paxton, Rachel Rodriguez of San Antonio was “exposed in a Project Veritas video” ahead of the 2020 election regarding vote harvesting and acknowledged what she was doing was illegal.

In an undercover video, Ms. Rodriguez was seen persuading an elderly woman to change her vote on her mail-in ballot from Republican Sen. John Cornyn to Democratic candidate M.J. Hegar, then giving her a shawl as a gift in an apparent violation of election law.

Ms. Rodriguez told a Project Veritas investigator that she was bringing “at least 7,000 ballots to the polls” in the San Antonio area, and that she had a team of at least five other people working on “flipping people,” referring to voters.

Rodriguez is accused of election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail and unlawfully possessing an official ballot, according to Paxton. She could face up to 20 years in prison if she is convicted.

Texas AG Paxton: San Antonio Election Fraudster Arrested for Widespread Vote Harvesting and Fraud

Press Releae, January 13, 2020:

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced the arrest of Rachel Rodriguez for election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail, and unlawfully possessing an official ballot. Each charge constitutes a felony under the Texas Election Code. Rodriguez was exposed in a Project Veritas video last fall while she engaged in vote harvesting leading up to the 2020 election. The Election Fraud Division of the Office of the Attorney General reviewed dozens of hours of unedited, raw footage, which led to this arrest. In an uncharacteristic moment of honesty, Rodriguez acknowledged on video that what she was doing is illegal and that she could go to jail for it. If convicted, Rodriguez could face up to 20 years in prison.

“Many continue to claim that there’s no such thing as election fraud. We’ve always known that such a claim is false and misleading, and today we have additional hard evidence. This is a victory for election integrity and a strong signal that anyone who attempts to defraud the people of Texas, deprive them of their vote, or undermine the integrity of elections will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The shocking and blatantly illegal action documented by Project Veritas demonstrates a form of election fraud my office continually investigates and prosecutes. I am fiercely committed to ensuring the voting process is secure and fair throughout the state, and my office is prepared to assist any Texas county in combating this insidious, un-American form of fraud.”

This investigation is ongoing. Individuals involved in or with knowledge of this organized vote harvesting scheme are encouraged to come forward and cooperate with the Office of the Attorney General.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICYMI: Pamela Geller discussing the Conservative Purge on Houston’s Morning New

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

President Trump supporters flock to MeWe, Gab, and Rumble after Parler goes offline

Millions of Americans are joining the alternative social media platforms, in response to Twitter and Facebook censoring President Trump. Once President Trump migrates to these social media platforms it’s game on. That is because millions of President Trump’s followers will join him. We must support platforms such as Parler (when they are live), MeWe, Gab, Rumble, and others who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That is the only way we will be able to circulate conservative content.

Trump supporters flock to MeWe, Gab, and Rumble after Parler goes offline

By Fortune.com, January 13, 2020

Our mission to make business better is fueled by readers like you. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.

Trump supporters are flocking to social media sites MeWe, Gab, and Rumble amid a crackdown by Big Tech on violent posts.

Gab, a service that claims to champion free speech, said it added 600,000 new users over the weekend. Meanwhile, MeWe, a similar service, said it has added 400,000 users every day since Saturday and now has more than 14 million members.

The gains follow Sunday’s shut down of conservative social network Parler, which went offline after Amazon web hosting service dumped Parler as a customer because of violent posts and threats in wake of the Capitol riot. Shortly before, Apple and Google had banned Parler from their app stores.

Adding to the increased interest in alternative social media sites are bans by Twitter and Facebook on President Trump and other high-profile conservative personalities. After the Capitol riots, Twitter and Facebook both booted Trump from their services for inciting the violence.

On Monday, Facebook went to the additional step of removing content containing the phrase “stop the steal” in hopes of preventing future violence. The phrase is a popular rallying call of Trump supporters who falsely believe there was widespread fraud in the presidential election.

“It’s almost like the perfect storm,” said MeWe CEO Mark Weinstein. “The melting pot of people coming to MeWe are coming from all directions.”

MeWe was the fifth most popular free app on Apple’s App Store and Google Play on Monday. Weinstein hammered home the point that his goal is to be “more vigilant” in moderating content on his service, and that he does not want to be an “anything goes” app—a thinly veiled swipe at Parler’s lax approach.

He said that MeWe has just shy of 100 content moderators who review posts on its service, and that they actually adhere to “strict” terms of service that includes the possibility that they’ll alert authorities about any concerning posts. But on Monday, several QAnon and “patriot” private groups could be found, one of which called Patriots Unleashed asked users if they were “armed and ready” before allowing them to join. MeWe removed Patriots Unleashed from its service after Fortune‘s story published.

Weinstein acknowledged that some of MeWe’s user growth has been due to Parler shutting down. But he added that the app was growing prior to the election and riots. As a result, he said MeWe’s users have a wide array of political views, and are not just Trumpists.

RELATED ARTICLE: Rep. Jim Jordan calls for Liz Cheney to be removed as conference chair

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.