Politics Archives - Page 602 of 1729

GoFundMe Denied Rittenhouse Fundraising While Crowdsourcing Funds For BLM Rioters, Violent Criminals

November 21, 2021/in Commentary, Culture War, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Geller Report

We are reaching a tipping point. And it won’t be pretty. These fascists must be summarily defeated. Joe McCarthy was right.

The corruption and destruction of public school education is manifest in our morally bankrupt, anti- freedom youth.

It’s a nightmare scenario.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

GoFundMe Denied Rittenhouse Fundraising While Crowdsourcing Funds For BLM Rioters

By: Tristan Justice, November 21, 2021:

The crowdsourced fundraising service GoFundMe sought to justify their early decision last year to terminate campaigns for Kyle Rittenhouse after the teen shooter was acquitted on all charges Friday.

“GoFundMe’s Terms of Service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime. In light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we want to clarify when and why we removed certain fundraisers in the past,” the platform wrote on Twitter with a link to a company statement.

Yet while Rittenhouse was denied crowdsourced funds for a political show trial charging the shooter with first-degree homicide in a case that was clearly self-defense, the website is still hosting campaigns soliciting donations for Black Lives Matter activists charged with violent crimes

Your garbage website is actively soliciting legal defense cash for violent BLM activists facing charges for felony rioting, assaulting cops, and—I kid you not—“bank robbery during [a] George Floyd riot,” not to mention the countless rioter bail funds you’re currently hosting. https://t.co/MOCp6WjItK pic.twitter.com/v3gpKxaHew

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 19, 2021

One campaign, titled “CHARGED WITH BANK ROBBERY DURING GEORGE FLOYD RIOT,” has raised $140 of a $40,000 goal for a couple arrested in May last year.

“My girlfriend was released with no paper, but unfortunately they kept me and charged me with bank larceny,” the description reads, adding that the charges have since changed to “attempted bank robbery.”

Another titled “Fundraiser for Tuscon Arrestees” is soliciting donations for 12 people who face felony riot charges. The campaign has so far raised nearly $7,200 of a $12,000 goal.

The “Tia Pugh Legal Defense Fund” is raising money for a 22-year-old Alabama woman arrested for criminal mischief and inciting a riot. The fund has just fallen about $50 short of a $3,000 goal.

Rittenhouse, however, was unable to collect donations from the website because the then-17-year-old shooter was charged with a violent crime. According to the political establishment, violence emanating from the left isn’t violence. It’s morally righteous in the name of social justice.

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.

With Oil Prices Up More than 60% in a Year Beijing Biden Sells U.S. Oil Reserves Overseas to Asia

November 21, 2021/in Economy, Elections, Energy, Environment, Policy, Politics/by The Geller Report

Joe Hoft over at Gateway is reporting that terrible Joe is selling America’s reserves of oil to Asia after shutting down oil production in the U.S. This is the act of an enemy. There is no pushback from quisling GOP ‘leadership.’

With Oil Prices Up More than 60% in a Year Biden Decides to Sell US Oil Reserves Overseas to Asia

By Joe Hoft November 18, 2021 at 5:20pm

Education Views reports:

Practically overnight, America went from oil independence and being a net oil [exporter], to suffering shortages and, as noted, rising prices. When asked about the problem, Biden risibly blamed OPEC and Russia. Meanwhile, Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, simply cackled maniacally and claimed the administration was helpless

Biden is now under pressure to tap the SPR to relieve some of the pressure on fuel prices. (Again, remember that Biden birthed this problem by squashing American fuel production, thereby creating the shortage. There’s also the little matter of his administration working with Congress to print money like rolls of toilet paper—except that toilet paper is more useful than inflationary dollars.) Even Chuckie Schumer wants to lower prices by chipping away at our SPR emergency supply, despite our having vast, untapped resources beneath American land.

It turns out, though, that Biden is already tapping into the SPR; he’s just not doing it to help Americans. A report in investment circles is finally trickling down into the mainstream news: Biden is selling massive amounts of SPR oil…to Asia!

This is based on a Bloomberg report:

About 1.6 million barrels of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a monthly record — was shipped out in October, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler. Three cargoes were loaded onto a supertanker in the U.S. Gulf Coast and are headed to Asia.

“Given the ongoing pace of the current SPR release — 12 million barrels in the last two months and the biggest weekly release so far last week at 3.1 million barrels — it’s fair to assume more SPR barrels are going to leave U.S. shores in the weeks ahead,” said Matt Smith, an oil analyst at Kpler.

Biden gave Taliban terrorists $84 billion in arms and gear and planes and choppers. Biden opened the Southern Border and more than a million illegal immigrants have crossed into the US. Now Biden sells the US oil reserves to Asia after changing America from being an oil exporter to dependent on Russia and the Middle East.

Is it time to impeach and remove Biden yet? If not when will it be enough?

RELATED TWEET:

While Biden canceled the keystone pipeline and effectively handcuffed the energy industry at home, the Chinese energy company Hunter lobbied for is now producing oil at a record level.

Media?

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) November 21, 2021

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.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

November 21, 2021/in Education, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

Top Kyle Rittenhouse Tweets

November 20, 2021/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Here’s some of the top tweets about America hero Kay Rittenhouse. Enjoy!

SELF DEFENSE: “Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a convicted child rapist, Joseph Rosenbaum himself, that was charging him from behind.”

My fiery but mostly peaceful appearance on @foxandfriends regarding the #KyleRittenhouseTrial outcome and fake news media cartel response pic.twitter.com/ANRJSBKarx

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) November 20, 2021

I am feeling guilty about thoroughly enjoying the hell out of watching the lefties meltdown over the correct Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty jury verdict. No I’m not🤭 pic.twitter.com/KTDS4izRUk

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) November 20, 2021

“I believe they came to the correct verdict and I’m glad that everything went well,” Rittenhouse said.

In his first public comments after being acquitted on 5 counts, #KyleRittenhouse said he thinks jurors reached the correct conclusion. https://t.co/2EA1TKLmkN

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) November 20, 2021

Antifa rioted & damaged property in downtown Portland, Ore. as vengeance for the jury’s verdict in Kyle #Rittenhouse case in #Kenosha, Wisc. pic.twitter.com/rSZZhtmHLP

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 20, 2021

The lies collapsed around Kyle Rittenhouse in that courtroom, the same way they are collapsing every day across this country. Winter is here…and justice is coming.

Listen to their silence.

They know. https://t.co/ulpzP60co5

— Lara Logan (@laralogan) November 20, 2021

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial wasn’t just about self-defense.

It wasn’t just about gun rights.

You have to ask yourself: Do we have the right to protect the cities that we love from those who seek to burn them to the ground?

The jury delivered a resounding “yes.” pic.twitter.com/rfhmdbd7KK

— #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) November 20, 2021

Rick Schroder explains helping bail out Kyle Rittenhouse – Los Angeles Times https://t.co/jrcHS0epMn

— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) November 20, 2021

The acquittal of teenage gunman Kyle Rittenhouse 'isn't political at all' but 'is about an 18-year-old who wanted to do the right thing', argues US Political Commentator @JackPosobiec.@MaajidNawaz pic.twitter.com/Nup1NzcRvX

— LBC (@LBC) November 20, 2021

DERSHOWITZ: "[Kyle Rittenhouse] should hire a very good defamation lawyer." @AlanDersh @CarlHigbie pic.twitter.com/TgqrmQu70C

— Newsmax (@newsmax) November 20, 2021

Good day for Justice. The same day that #KyleRittenhouse’s right to self-defense was recognized, so was this man’s.
A black man from Gifford who shot SWAT members invading his house. https://t.co/PZV4B2OBde

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) November 20, 2021

Have you ever seen so many people unhappy that an innocent man didn’t go to jail?

— Mini AOC (@RealMiniAOC) November 21, 2021

Following mass #antifa violence last night in Portland, Ore., the antifa cell in Los Angeles has announced a direct action for today at Pershing Square. #Rittenhouse pic.twitter.com/FBoZk5zPK7

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 20, 2021

Former State Senators Andrew Dinniman and John Eichelberger Tapped as Pennsylvania State Co-Chairs for U.S. Term Limits

November 20, 2021/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by U.S. Term Limits

HARRISBURG, Pa. /PRNewswire/ — Today, U.S. Term Limits announces that former State Senators Andrew Dinniman and John Eichelberger, Jr., have agreed to be the Pennsylvania State Co-Chairs for U.S. Term Limits. Dinniman, a Democrat and Eichelberger, a Republican bring a bipartisan approach to an issue that over 80% of Pennsylvanians regardless of political affiliation support – term limits for Congress. They have both seen first-hand the need for term limits at the federal level and will work tirelessly in their role as Pennsylvania State Co-Chairs to see that Pennsylvania adopts a resolution for term limits.

“I am very honored to be serving with John as the Pennsylvania State Co-Chair for U.S. Term Limits,” said Andy Dinniman. “In this polarized political atmosphere, it is refreshing to see Democrats and Republicans working together. Term limits for Congress is one issue that all Americans agree on. I look forward to working with John to see that Pennsylvania adopts a resolution calling for congressional term limits.”

“I am glad to be working with Andy again on an issue that is of paramount concern for all Americans,” said John Eichelberger. Term limits is truly a bipartisan idea.

“We are honored to have Andy and John leading our efforts in Pennsylvania to pass term limits on Congress,” said Philip Blumel, President of U.S. Term Limits. “They are strong leaders who understand the problems within Congress and the need for term limits. Under their guidance, I am confident we will get our term limits resolution passed in Pennsylvania.”

Andrew Dinniman served in the Pennsylvania State Senate from 2006-2020, where he was Democratic Chair of the Education Committee. In addition, Dinniman, as Senator, was a member of the State Board of Education, the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority, the Historical and Museum Commission, State Public School Building Authority, the Higher Education Facilities Authority, Lincoln University Board of Trustees, as well as numerous other boards.

Before being elected to the Senate Dinniman served for over 14 years as Chester County Commissioner. He has been a long-time faculty member at West Chester University where he is currently Professor Emeritus.

Politically Dinniman served as Chair of the Chester County Democratic Committee as well as a member of the Pennsylvania and National Democratic Committees.

John Eichelberger served in the Pennsylvania State Senate from 2007 to 2018. While in the Senate, he chaired the Senate Education Committee and was vice chairman of the Banking and Insurance committee. He also served as the Subcommittee Chair on the Appropriations Committee, and served on the Senate Judiciary, Game and Fisheries, Transportation, and Agriculture Committees. Eichelberger chaired the Pro-Life Caucus.

Prior to serving in the State Senate, Eichelberger served as Blair County Commissioner from 1995 to 2006. He owns Complete Insurance Services. Eichelberger is a 1985 graduate of Penn State.

Chinese Influence Rising!

November 20, 2021/in Culture War, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Save America Foundation

The Women’s Tennis Association threatened to pull its business out of China after a Chinese tennis star was silenced and went missing following accusations she made against a Chinese Communist Party leader that he coerced her into sex. The story is a good reminder why we don’t want to be ‘more like China’ and why we don’t want China corrupting our elites.

Unfortunately, more muckety-mucks in Washington and other halls of power appear to be falling under China’s spell.

Climate envoy John Kerry, who says he’s just the climate guy and can’t be bothered about slave labor in China, owns a $1 million stake in a Chinese private equity fund that invested in a tech company blacklisted for human rights abuses. The fund is also a major shareholder in a solar panel company linked to forced labor. Kerry is actively working against Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed Uighur Forced Labor Act. And here I thought Kerry was just an insane ideologue. Looks like he has financial motivations, as well.

Chinese telecom giant Huawei, which is tied to the People’s Liberation Army, paid Tony Podesta $1 million to lobby the Biden administration. Tony’s brother John is very connected, having been Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and in the Obama White House.

Big media companies continue to take money from Huawei to run what is called ‘sponsored content’ in their publications. The latest examples include the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Reuters, and Politico. Huawei is considered a national security risk, but these supposed honest brokers of the news have no problem spewing its propaganda as long as the price is right.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s husband’s law firm has several clients linked to the Chinese Communist Party and military. It employs former CCP officials to facilitate its sizeable China practice. It’s also on record praising China’s economic central planning.

The notorious Adam Schiff, the man who claimed to have solid evidence of Trump-Russia collusion when he didn’t, met in 2009 with a Chinese Communist Party official who used to head up China’s influence operations, it was recently revealed.

Joe Biden’s favors for China go further back than that. In 2000, while the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden pushed for normalizing trade relations with China and, later, pushed for listing Chinese companies on U.S. stock exchanges. The financial dealings of Hunter Biden with China are well-known, as is evidence Joe Biden personally benefitted from those dealings. Last year, Hunter Biden promised to sell his investment in a Chinese government-linked firm and resign from its board. In October, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to say whether Hunter had done so, as promised.

When I last reported to you on this subject [9/24/21], I gave you several examples of Biden underlings who are also in bed with China. You might recall a video from some months ago showing a Chinese professor bragging about how U.S. elites have teamed up with China to take control of America. I recently attended a conference where a speaker said there really is a deep state and it does not have America’s best interests at heart. If not America’s interests, then whose? All these tales from the China swamp should give you your first clue.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

How the Nuremberg Code Applies to the Vaccine

November 20, 2021/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Rod Thomson

The first mandate listed in the “Permissible Medical Experiments” section of volume II of the Trials of War Criminals reads: “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” That’s it then, right? Shouldn’t Biden be locked up as a war criminal? After all, he’s been calling for forced vaccines. And they are experimental.

During Military Tribunals in Germany following World War II, Nazi doctors and medical administrators were tried for atrocities committed during the holocaust. To prevent a repeat of the evils perpetrated on humanity, the judges outlined 10 conditions for permissible medical experiments in the future that became known as the Nuremberg Code.

Its adoption into the 1949 Geneva Conventions later gave the 1947 Code international standing. Breaking from the Convention’s intent presumably constitutes a war crime. Thus, with COVID jabs being forced on unwilling participants, we ought to at least understand what the Nuremberg Code is about.

Some fact checkers, as is often the case, are basing their Nuremberg Code vaccine arguments on opinion. Take USA Today, for example. Once a respected news organization, they’ve now jumped on the lucrative bandwagon of having in-house “fact-checkers.” If any of your Facebook posts have ever been banned, there’s a good chance USA Today was responsible.

An article published August 10, 2021 attempts to discredit one Facebook user’s claim that forced vaccinations go against the Nuremberg Code. USA Today’s fact-checkers state that “[t]he claim that ‘forced’ vaccines are against the Nuremberg Code is FALSE, based on our research.” Notice they aren’t discrediting that vaccines are covered under the Code. Simply that the current forced vaccines aren’t illegal.

That claim might have held water until one reads the disclaimer at the end of the article: “Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.” Oh, no bias there!

Putting that aside, let’s dissect the USA Today fact-checkers’ “evidence.”

Their “research” led to their assumption that the “Nuremberg Code addresses human experimentation, not vaccines approved for emergency use.” Fair enough. But where is their proof that “Americans who get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not part of an experiment.” Or that “[t]he vaccines have been tested in clinical trials and found to be safe and effective.” I couldn’t find it.

Their main source justifies the record speed of the vaccine by the “layering” of trials made possible by advancements in technology, abundance of funding, and relaxing of bureaucratic regulations. That’s all well and good, but nowhere does the fact-checkers’ source state that the resulting vaccine was proven safe and effective.

My research has discovered quite the opposite.

While the jabs were indeed approved for emergency use authorization, such status is normally reserved when no other treatments are available. Per the FDA’s own website, they “may authorize unapproved medical products … to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions … when … there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” (Emphasis mine.)

But COVID-19 did have several “adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” And those had proven track records by the time the vaccine’s EUA was approved. Had they not been highly censored by social media and our own government agencies, including Facebook and Dr. Fauci’s NIAID, those alternatives would have saved many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more lives than they already have as has been proven by experts brave enough to publish their findings.

Dr. Peter McCullough, for example, known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers on COVID is just one of many. Today his work remains the most downloaded and utilized papers throughout the pandemic.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of FOX News, McCullough, who has treated thousands of COVID patients, told Carlson there’s “been a global oblivion” to the idea of treating patients with COVID-19. There are effective outpatient treatments, “including monoclonal antibodies such as Regeneron and intracellular anti-infectives including hydroxychloroquine.” He is also a big proponent of Ivermectin.

McCullough added: “What frustrated me, was in the media cycle, all we heard about was reducing spread, and then later on vaccination. We never actually heard about treating sick patients. Had there been more of a focus on treating sick patients, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID deaths.” Instead, he said, there’s an “incredible suppression of early treatment in the medical literature.”

He’s hardly the only one speaking out. America’s Frontline Doctors, the mRNA inventor of the vaccine technology Dr. Robert Malone, Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned “Physician of Presidents” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko have all risked their livelihoods and fortunes to get the truth out. Heavily censored and ridiculed, these whistleblowers have collectively saved scores of people with their successful treatment plans.

So just because social media controllers have shaped the narrative that treatments are non-existent doesn’t make it true. And simply because vaccines have been approved for EUA means little when the very alternative, and inexpensive, treatments for COVID have been banned.

Which returns us to the original question of whether the vaccines are experimental as the above-mentioned fact-checkers deny.

Nuremberg Code Principle #1 makes clear that the recipient of a medical treatment “should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension … as to enable him to make an … enlightened decision.” And that, “there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment … and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” Were vaccine recipients provided such “knowledge and comprehension” about the effects before getting the jab?

In an in-depth research article I published on April 28, 2020, I exposed that “an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced that ‘no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

In other words, human beings would become the experimental guinea pigs for the ultimate “safety and efficacy of mRNA” technology.

According to Smithsonian Magazine, “in July [2020], both Moderna and Pfizer/bioNTech began studies of their mRNA vaccines in about 30,000 people apiece, hoping to show their vaccines are safe in large groups.” Those results were, supposedly, released in November — a mere four months after the first studies in humans began. Seems awfully convenient that the testing was deemed adequate for mass distribution just as the waning immunity now known was about to become discovered.

When the left uses Saul Alinsky’s Tactic #9, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself,” anything is possible. And so it was with the rush to get a COVID-19 vaccine into the arms of human test subjects paralyzed by the fear from the left’s lies that there were no other treatment alternatives available.

Experts agreed even then that the normal time to bring a vaccine to market safely is 10-15 years as Heritage.org reported in April 2020. They stressed that, “[b]efore a vaccine can be tested in humans, it’s investigated carefully in a lab. This step usually involves animal trials, but regulators have allowed researchers to skip this step to fast-track development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.”

A third point in Principle #1 of the Nuremberg Code states that “the person involved should … be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” For those who understand the deception behind the vaccine’s rush to market, our final outrage is our looming loss of freedoms.

Those who have done our research trust no Facebook bought-and-paid-for fact-checker to convince us that these experimental jabs are safe or deserve the Emergency Use Authorization designation they’ve been so hastily given.

Perhaps fact-checkers should instead focus on the tenets of the Geneva Convention which state that the rules pertain to war-time atrocities. Then the argument becomes whether we are being experimented on during a state of war. Now that’s an argument worth having and will be explored in my article next week. Stay tuned!

COLUMN BY

CATHI CHAMBERLAIN

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at Cathi@RulesforDeplorablesBook.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Europe On The Brink: Media Blackout Of MASSIVE Protests Against Mandates, Riots Over Austria Unvaxxed Law

USA City Council Approves Measure To Vax Kids Without Parental Consent

CDC Moves The Goalposts Says Report

RELATED TWEET:

Police open fire on anti-lockdown protesters in The Netherlands https://t.co/1XZRumWY5L pic.twitter.com/27y431QgM6

— New York Post (@nypost) November 20, 2021

What the Rittenhouse case tells us about the Democrats and the Right to Defend Oneself

November 20, 2021/in Courts & Law, Elections, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Democrats are up in arms, literally, about the not guilty verdict on all charges against a young American named Kyle Rittenhouse. The jury didn’t kowtow to the media narrative, or to the threats made against them, as they deliberated on a case involving one of the most fundamental and basic right of every American citizen – the right to self-defense.

Just as nations defend themselves so do their citizens. We have seen what happens when any government takes away this God given right for citizens to defend themselves, their families, their property and their businesses.

EXAMPLE: Unarmed citizens, in the case of Nazi Germany, couldn’t defend themselves after Hitler took away their guns and then forced them onto railcars headed to death camps.

Stand Your Ground Laws

According to Giffords Law Center:

There are no federal Stand Your Ground laws. This is a policy addressed solely by state laws, judicial decisions, jury instructions, or a combination of all three.

A majority of states (30) have now enacted Stand Your Ground laws applicable in all public places, starting with Utah in 1994¹² and then, at the behest of the NRA, Florida in 2005.¹³ In eight others, court decisions have removed a traditional “duty to retreat” in public.

For example, in 2005 Florida became the second state to pass a “Stand Your Ground” law:

The “Stand Your Ground” Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and

The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

Tucker Carlson did a comprehensive and powerful review of the Kyle Rittenhouse case in just 15 minutes. Watch:

Democrat Lies and Tucker Carlson Truths

Democrats don’t want Americans to stand their ground against a thief, an attacker or an angry mob. What Democrats want is to disarm every American citizen by any and all means necessary. While Democrats have personal bodyguards they want to defund our police, leaving you defenseless.

Tucker Carlson makes these key points during his monologue:

Kyle Rittenhouse was in Kenosha, Wisconsin because in 2020 when mob violence took place after the local police shot Jacob Blake, a black man. Interestingly, after the Kenosha riots Joe Biden said, “Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting, it’s lawlessness, plain and simple. “And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change. It will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.” Ironic isn’t it.
The jurors had great moral courage, despite threats of violence against them, when they focused on the facts of the case, not the politics surrounding it.
It was obvious, from the evidence, that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
There were months of relentless lying about the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
Propaganda doesn’t always win.
As a legal matter this Rittenhouse case is over.
For the authoritarians amongst us this [case] is a disaster. Why? Because the Rittenhouse case is a referendum on the most basic right of all, the ancient, right to self defense.
If Kyle Rittenhouse can save his own life from the mob, then you can too.
New York Democrat Jerry Nadler wants the Department of Justice to make the Rittenhouse case a “federal” one. You would have to be deranged to even think of something like this.
If the case goes to the DOJ then it would be handled by Kristen Clark, a black nationalist. Clark weighed in on the Rittenhouse case and made it all about color as if white is some kind of crime. Clark was quoted as being concerned about “armed white men killing innocent people.” Kyle and those he shot were all white.
Since this case began for Democrats it has all been about race.
The false accusation that Kyle Rittenhouse took his gun across state lines is meant as a wedge to create legislation that nullifies concealed carry reciprocity laws and the right to carry weapons across state lines.

Conclusion

Self defense is a fundamental right for every human being. Water down or take away that right and you have tyranny.

In his book 1984 George Orwell wrote, “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse we have seen elected officials, prosecuting attorneys, the media and Democrats destroy words like self defense, right to keep bear arms, right to protect one’s property.

We live in a land where we have equal justice under the law and the presumption that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Democrats are now destroying these words and replacing them with guilty even if your proven innocent by a jury of your peers.

Gird your loins. Here come the thought police.

RELATED TWEET:

Call for justice for Crystul Kizer of Kenosha.

Kizer was 17, shot & killed her pedophile child sex trafficker to escape.

She was wrongfully denied access to a self-defense law & her case is on appeal.

It's more productive than attacking Kyle Rittenhouse. pic.twitter.com/U4SLMXcpAx

— An Open Secret (@AnOpenSecret) November 20, 2021

NYT Explores What Happens When Democrats Have All the Power. The Answer May Surprise You

November 20, 2021/in Economy, Elections, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

It turns out voters and lawmakers in progressive states arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. But that’s not all.

Last week New York Times video journalist Johnny Harris asked a simple question.

“What do Democrats actually do when they have all the power?”

It turns out that 18 states in the US are effectively run by Democrats, who control both the executive and legislative branches. As Harris notes, Democratic leaders tend to blame Republicans for foiling their progressive plans, but that’s hardly the case in these 18 states where Republicans stand well away from the levers of power.

To answer his question—what do Democrats do when they have power?—Harris teamed up with Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics on the Times editorial board and author of The Economists’ Hour.

What they found may surprise you.

‘Housing Is a Human Right’

First, Harris and Applebaum drilled into the 2020 Democratic Party Platform to see which values were most important to Democrats. They then focused on a particular state: California, the “quintessential liberal state” where Democrats rule with ironclad majorities and control the government in most major cities. Finally, the journalists decided to look at one specific policy: housing.

As Harris notes, housing policy is not exactly sexy stuff. But Applebaum stresses just how important housing is in battling inequality.

“Looking at California, you have to look at housing,” Applebaum says. “You cannot say you are against income inequality in America unless you are willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood….The neighborhood where you are born has a huge influence on the rest of your life.”

Moreover, Harris points out that Democrats overwhelmingly agree on its vital importance, noting that the word housing is mentioned more than 100 times in the Democrats’ platform. Indeed, Democrats are shown repeating a common mantra in the Times video.

“Housing is a human right.”

So How Does California Score on Housing?

Democrats may say housing is a human right, but Applebaum notes their actions say something else, at least in California.

“You know those signs where you drive into a state and it says ‘Welcome to California’?” asks Applebaum. “You might as well replace them with signs that say KEEP OUT. Because in California the cost of housing is so high that for many people it’s simply unaffordable.”

As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2019, California has “an overregulation problem,” which is why nine of the 15 priciest metro areas in the US are in California and the median price of a house in San Diego is $830,000. In some cases, people have had to wait 20 years to build a pair of single family homes. (Applebaum, it’s worth noting, appears to misdiagnose the problem. He complains that “the state has simply for the most part stopped building housing.” Perhaps Applebaum simply misspoke, but it’s worth noting the state doesn’t need to build a single unit of housing; it simply needs to step back and allow the market to function.)

Regulations, however, aren’t the full story. As Harris notes, Californians themselves have fought tooth and nail to keep higher-density affordable housing out of their neighborhoods. Palo Alto is cited as an example, where voters in 2013 overturned a unanimous city council vote to rezone a 2.46-acre site to enable a housing development with 60 units for low-income seniors and 12 single-family homes.

“I think people aren’t living their values,” Applebaum says. “There’s an aspect of sort of greed here.”

Housing isn’t the only area the Times journalists find where progressives fail to “live their values.” Washington state having the most regressive tax rate in the US is cited as another example, as are the “gerrymandered” school districts in states like Illinois and Connecticut that consign low-income families to the least-funded schools because of their zip code.

The journalists are left with a gloomy conclusion.

“For some of these foundational Democratic values of housing equality, progressive taxation, and education equality, Democrats don’t actually embody their values very well,” Harris says.

Applebaum is even more blunt.

“Blue states are the problem,” the economics writer says. “Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem.”

Harris says affluent liberals “tend to be really good at showing up at the marches” and talking about their concerns over inequality. But when rubber meets the road, they tend to make decisions based on a different calculus: what benefits them personally.

The Butcher, the Brewer, and the Baker

For some, the findings and claims of the Times journalists could be jarring. But they are likely no surprise to FEE readers.

One of the pillars of public choice theory—a school of economics pioneered by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan—is that people make decisions based primarily on self-interest. (People act out of concern for others, too, but these interests tend to be secondary to self-interest.) Buchanan’s theory rests on the idea that all groups of people tend to reach decisions in this manner, including people acting in the political marketplace such as voters, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Many believe that self interest is part of the human condition, something as natural as hunger, love, and procreation. Harnessing the instinct of self-interest in a healthy way—through free exchange—has long been considered a cornerstone of capitalism and a key to a prosperous society.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,” Adam Smith famously observed in The Wealth of Nations. “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

For many progressives, however, self-interest has become a kind of heresy. The idea that individuals should be motivated by such things as profit and self-interest is anathema; these are values to be found in Ayn Rand novels, not practiced in 21st century America.

But as Applebaum notes, progressives are in fact making decisions based on self-interest—he uses the word “greed”—not altruism. This should come as little surprise, and it would be perfectly fine if progressives were acting on self-interest in a market economy; but they are not. They are using the law in perverse ways to their own benefit—all while maintaining the belief that they’re acting out of altruism.

The Times article makes it clear that voters and politicians in progressive states still arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. The results are just far worse when those decisions are made in the political space, not the marketplace.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

New Harvard Study: Homeschoolers Turn Out Happy, Well-Adjusted, and Engaged

November 20, 2021/in Culture War, Education, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Homeschooled children fared better than children who attended public schools in many categories.

Researchers at Harvard University just released findings from their new study showing positive outcomes for homeschooled students. Writing in The Wall Street Journal last week, Brendan Case and Ying Chen of the Harvard Human Flourishing Program concluded that public school students “were less forgiving and less apt to volunteer or attend religious services than their home-schooled peers.”

The scholars analyzed data of over 12,000 children of nurses who participated in surveys between 1999 and 2010 and found that homeschooled children were about one-third more likely to engage in volunteerism and have higher levels of forgiveness in early adulthood than those children who attended public schools. Homeschooled children were also more likely to attend religious services in adulthood than children educated in public schools, which the researchers noted is correlated with “lower risks of alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide.”

The new findings offer a stark contrast to the portrayal of homeschoolers by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who notoriously called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling last year—just before the US homeschool population ballooned to more than 11 percent of the overall school-age population, or more than five million students, in the wake of the coronavirus response.

In their Journal Op-Ed, Case and Chen challenged their colleague.

“The picture of the home-schooled student that emerges from the data doesn’t resemble the socially awkward and ignorant stereotype to which Ms. Bartholet and others appeal. Rather, home-schooled children generally develop into well-adjusted, responsible and socially engaged young adults,” they wrote.

The Harvard researchers also discovered that homeschooled students were less likely to attend college than their public school peers. Some media outlets latched onto this finding in their headlines, while ignoring the Harvard scholars’ speculation that this could be due to a variety of factors. Homeschoolers could be choosing alternatives to college as a pathway to adulthood, and college admissions practices may create barriers for homeschooled students.

I reached out to Case and Chen for additional comments on their study’s findings, including how they think the homeschooling data and outcomes might have changed since 2010, when their data set ended.

“We are also glad to see that some colleges, including some top-tier colleges, have become more flexible in their admission policies for homeschoolers over the past years,” Chen responded.

Indeed, more colleges and universities have implemented clearer guidelines and policies for homeschooled students in recent years, and many are now eager to attract homeschooled applicants. In 2015, Business Insider noted that homeschooling is the “new path to Harvard,” and in 2018 the university profiled several of its homeschooled students.

The researchers also suspect that the well-being gap between homeschoolers and public school students has widened over the past decade, with homeschoolers faring even better.

“For instance, social media apps have come to smartphones over the past few years, leading to their widespread adoption by teenagers and even younger children,” Chen told me this week. “Some prior studies suggested that such increasing smartphone use may have contributed to the recent huge spikes in adolescent depression, anxiety, and school loneliness. Cyberbullying, sexting and ‘phubbing’ have also become more common in children’s daily lives, especially in school settings. We might expect that these issues may be less common among homeschoolers than their public school peers.”

As more families experimented with homeschooling last year, and many of them decided to continue this fall, the new Harvard data should help them to feel confident about their education choice. In terms of human flourishing, homeschoolers are doing well—perhaps even better than their schooled peers.

“Many parents opted to try homeschooling during the COVID pandemic,” said Chen. “Hopefully, the public awareness about homeschooling and the related practices and support for homeschoolers will be improved in the long run.”

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

VIDEO: As Violent Mobs Grows, Citizen Militias Might be The Answer

November 20, 2021/in Courts & Law, Elections, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Video/by Martin Mawyer

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A new Gallup poll finds that Americans’ support for stricter gun control has declined to the lowest level since 2014, with 52 percent now supporting it. – FEE.org

Street violence is becoming the norm for radical-leftist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They threaten businesses, conservative events, and even religious gatherings. As understaffed, underfunded, and under-equipped police departments struggle to defend citizen rights liberties, and property, citizen militias might be the cavalry coming to the rescue.

Martin Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, joins Pastor Jason Binder to have a frank and eye-popping discussion with the executive officer of the Campbell County, VA militia, Dan Abbott, on the need for every state to have local militias.

Street violence is becoming the norm for radical-leftist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They threaten businesses, conservative events and even religious gatherings.

As under-funded police departments struggle to contain the violence, citizen militia groups might be the answer to fill the void.

Back in May, in a story that never made national news, a local restaurant in Lynchburg, VA was attacked by a mob of 200 rioters upset over the owner’s statement about Gov. Ralph Northam’s mask mandate.

Hundreds of rocks were thrown at the restaurant as patrons were dining. M80 fireworks were pitched. The rioters threatened not only to loot restaurant but to burn it to the ground. When a handful of police showed up, they were immediately overwhelmed by the thugs.

That’s when the owner called for additional help by reaching out to leaders of local militia groups. They quickly responded and saved the restaurant!

One of those groups was the Campbell County militia, the state’s first officially recognized militia.

In my recent podcast, I spoke with its executive officer, Dan Abbott, about that dangerous, life-threatening night. He told me a half-dozen police officers later called to thank his organization for showing up!

But we all want to know more about militias than their ability rescue of engendered citizens. How do they recruit? Who do they recruit? Do they train? What about bad recruits? What happens to them? I pepper Mr. Abbott with all those questions Americans want to know about militia groups.

I think you’ll find Mr. Abbott’s answers enlightening, informative and remarkable.

You can watch my podcast here. But don’t miss any upcoming episodes. Please ‘follow‘ my weekly podcast, by clicking the follow button at the page’s top right.

In my next episode, I’ll be talking with Ryan Mauro, the director of the Clarion Intelligence Network, and their courageous efforts to get Christians out of Afghanistan BEFORE they are hunted down by ruthless Taliban soldiers.

Letter to Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The NY Times RE: Joey’s European Vacation

November 20, 2021/in Commentary, Policy, Politics/by Christopher Cirino

Good day Deano,

I hope today finds you well, in your duties as Executive Editor of the esteemed New York Times. I see that you have been busy reporting on the stellar job done by Brandon and his administration recently. As usual, it has been one outstanding accomplishment after another the last few weeks. Of course our adversaries, that radical right wing, has been doing its best to discredit and besmirch Joey and his top notch administration. Thank heavens for your ever unbiased, apolitical news coverage over there at Pravda, I mean the Times. Reading through your headlines, I almost never see any negative reports about the Brandon/Harris (she is still the installed VP, right?) installed administration, so the Conservatives must be spewing propaganda………right Deano? Let’s take a look at some of Joey and his teams recent major accomplishments.

Joey’s European Vacation

We’ll Joey headed across the pond for the G20 summit regarding climate change, the handling of the plandemic, and finally global economic recovery. There is no word if Joey used an electric plane to get there……you know, the carbon footprint and all. Well the installed POTUS started his trip over in Rome, where he was to meet the Pontiff. I was a bit disappointed Deano, that the live broadcast of this monumental meeting was cancelled at the last minute. I was a little upset because this is where Joey usually shines, you know, those unscripted live events. You can usually catch them on you tube (before they are removed), because 95% of the networks won’t show them; for the life of me I don’t know why.Well, they did show a very abbreviated exchange he had with the Pope. What did they discuss, you ask? Well, Joey cut right to the chase and addressed the elephant in the room. He discussed the baseball career of the great pitcher Satchel Paige, but of course. He explained to the Pope in great detail his longevity and how pitcher’s usually only last until they’re 35, and many other very interesting facts. He went on for quite a bit on this subject. Reliable sources (Washington Post trick), say they heard the Pontiff ask the interpreter, “what is this babbling buffoon talking about?”

American press corps were again outraged that they were shut out. Washington Times reporter Jeff Murdock, was quoted saying, “this is an embarrassment to the freedom of the press.” He also pointed to the cowardly shifting of blame to the Vatican, by the ever honest, Jen Goebbels Psaki, in regards to press access.

Well, Joey put everyone at ease. He said the Pope told him he was a good Catholic. Calls to the Pontiff’s staff to ascertain if the Pope actually said this, went unanswered. Well, I don’t know about you Deano, but Brandon’s word is good enough for me, I mean when have you ever heard him lie………well, we better scratch that. The good thing is the meeting lasted 90 minutes, much longer than usual that sitting Presidents have with the Pontiff. There is that vigor and endurance Joey shows constantly, as shown earlier this year with him crawling up plane stairs, repeatly, I might add. Even though reportedly, a majority of the time was spent in the Vatican bathroom for some reason. Maybe Joey had a bad cannoli.

Conservatives asked their liberal counterparts about the absurdity of 118 private jets coming to a CLIMATE SUMMIT; you know, to address climate issues and fossil fuel emissions, the infamous carbon footprint – and not to mention little Joey having an 85 FOSSIL FUEL driven car/suv entourage drive him around. The right wingers point once again to the blatant liberal hypocrisy and double standard, which all have become accustomed to with this installed administration. When asked to comment on this, the administration replied….President Trump is a racist!

Off to Scotland

This was the meat and potatoes of the trip, where Joey could focus on what he considers the biggest threat right now, climate change. Others may beg to differ, especially U.S. citizens. They may mention, the Southern border debacle, the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster, highest inflation rate in 31 years, energy dependency versus energy independency, gas up 49% since last October, supply chain quagmire, violent crime out of control in most major (Democratic) cities, etc, etc.But, I digress. Joey was there to tackle climate change, again mostly concerned with fossil fuel emissions. Joey started by meeting some of the royals, namely the Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla. It seems here is where the emissions issue came to a head, it seems our installed POTUS had a bit of a flatulence problem. I mean talk about a carbon footprint! There is our Joey Talibiden, that scamp, making America proud once again.

On to the actual meeting of the minds, at the actual United Nations Climate Change Conference. This again is where Joey said, “climate change is the greatest threat to America’s national security!” Again, some might say, that is actually Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or the aforementioned debacles. Well, Joey went in with representatives from all over the world to plead his case.

But alas, it was not meant to be. With the entire world watching Joey aka Brandon felt this was time to catch up on some sleep, until an aide had to rouse him and say Mr. installed President, it is not nap time yet. Sources say, his first concern was if he had missed Matlock.

The right points out that this feeble, inept puppet who was obviously installed to push a progressive Socialist agenda, by those behind the scenes is a (dangerous) laughingstock on display for the entire world to see. They again call for “Dr” Jill to be arrested for elder abuse. Once again Deano old sport, I saw no mention of this major faux pas in your renowned NY Times. I venture to say that if we switched him out with say, President Trump for instance, you may have had a word or two about it. Ah, The Times always fair and balanced with you at the helm, Mr Dean Baquet, Executive Editor.

Joey Sets China Straight

Well, after dazzling those abroad, Joey had China next in his sights. This is where he held China’s leader Xi Jinping’s feet to the fire. He held a 3 hour zoom call with the fellow Communist leader. There is that endurance thing again, oh that Joey. Well, officials later set the record straight. They spoke for 15 minutes before Joey’s first 1 hour nap, then spoke for another 15 minutes before his next 1 hour nap while finishing up with another 15 minute exchange. The missing time was attributed to Joey getting lost where he ended up playing lawn darts on the White House lawn. “Dr” Jill was furious with Joey, and refused to give him his usual pudding cup.Well, what did the installed leader of this once great nation discuss with this mutual Communist leader? Most were hoping Old Joe would ask Xi why has he stopped the investigation of the Wuhan Lab virus. You know, that lab that was funded by over $600,000 of American tax dollars. You know, the virus that has claimed over 5,000,000,000 lives worldwide. You know, the country that cornered the market on ppp equipment just PRIOR to the outbreak. You know, the country that STOPPED shipping said equipment, just prior and during the outbreak. You know, the country that forbid travel into their country during the outbreak, but let their citizens leave their country. I believe President Trump tried to do that here and was labeled a Xenophob.

Media Propaganda

Well, how much of this did Brandon bring up? Well, actually none of it. Nada! I don’t know, something that consumed our lives for going on 2 years. Something that basically shut down the entire world for months last year. Something that Joey campaigned on (from his basement), claiming that “he would shut down the virus and not the country…. remember, we have a plan.” Something that has killed approximately 355,000 Americans on Little Joey’s watch alone. You would never know that though. CNN and your NY Times stopped putting up the Covid death tote board after Joey was installed. There is that fair and balanced reporting you promote Dean Baquet. Maybe you could reach out to your publisher AG Sulzberger, and have old Slushy reinstate the death tote board, that you prominently displayed on you front page while President Trump was the ELECTED President.As usual the right says, Joey caved and never discusses anything of substance with world leaders. After calling Putin a killer on network TV here, he called him a “worthy adversary” while meeting with him face to face. Xi Jinping called Joey “my old friend” on greeting him. This after Joey lashed out at Peter Doocy earlier saying, “ Let’s get something straight, I AM NOT HIS FRIEND, it is pure business.” But to Xi, he never said a word. I don’t know about you Deano, but I’m starting to think all those guys Joey used to take out behind the gym and beat the hell out of ……actually took him out and beat the hell out of him. The right points out when the pressure is on, Joey is in fact quite cowardly.

Mixed Signals

Speaking of lashing out. When Joey returned from his stellar performance overseas he was hit with another question from the aforementioned Peter Doocy. He was questioned in regards to illegal alien “families” separated at the infamous Southern border, receiving $450,000, per “parent.” Well, that triggered Joey’s red hot temper, he exclaimed explosively, “that is absolute garbage, that is not happening.” Ok, then that is settled right Deano? Then the very next day, there was Joey doing his best Jekyll and Hyde, exploding even more vehemently saying, “whether you came across legally or illegally….you lose a child you DESERVE compensatation, no matter what the situation.” When press secretary Little Red Lying Hood Psaki was asked about the complete about face she said, “but the insurrection, next question.” Yeah, what about that insurrection that occurred on November 3, 2020? When will those responsible for this grave injustice be brought to task anyway?So Deano old sport, which one is it………garbage or deserving? Does his administration brief this installed puppet on current policies before he gets behind a microphone or is he just forgetting, or just doing the usual and lying? Again, the right is asking and it seems appropriate, questioning this man’s mental acuity, and AGAIN asking for a medical and neurological exam. They attribute these confused outbursts to sundowning later in the day, due to his mental decline. One would hope if that is the case, then a family member, perhaps “Dr” Jill, would step in on his behalf. How she lets her husband make a fool of himself, and more importantly, this once great country is beyond me. On the other hand, look at all the travel she gets to enjoy on the taxpayers dime. Plus, she gets a nice wall for free around her summer home in Rehobeth, not to be confused with their primary estate in Delaware. Plus all those cocktail parties and decorating the White House for the holidays……..so what if Joey likes to walk around the White House in a onesie pajama with a propeller hat…it’s all good with the “DR.”

Shocking!

Here is a shocker Deano. Brandon is meeting with the Mexican and Canadian leaders today to discuss root causes of the immigration problems. I’m sorry Deano, I had to stop and get some tissues due to laughter. I’m no politician or brilliant strategist, but maybe we could just put back the policies that were in place and working. I know, crazy idea right? Where is that Border Czar when you need her? Oh, that’s right she was on special assignment over in Paris. I understand that was a smashing success. She accomplished, well…………….I understand she bought some lovely cookware and consumed an enormous amount of French pastries. Oh, and yeah, she spoke in a great French accent when dealing with officials there. Experts are referring to it as the Pepe La Pew incident. As a side note, we are told that is Joey’s second favorite cartoon character, next to Daffy Duck. Here is the shocking part I mentioned earlier, Joey will NOT be taking any questions after this meeting…..go figure, huh Deano. President Trump is a racist!

What’s Up At The Times Deano?

Hey Deano, I know how your paper is the first to address racist attacks, and rightfully so. I’m sure you don’t see too much of that where you live in the exclusive non-diverse enclave of Larchmont California. I’m also pretty sure Slushy doesn’t see too much from his tinted windows in his chauffeur driven limousine, (is that where they get the term limousine liberal?) Well this one hits us all close to home. It seems your esteemed paper has in its employ, what seems to be an out and out racist. I know, I was shocked too, Deano, does Slushy know about this?I am referring to a contracted contributor of your opinion page, originally part of your editorial board, a Ms. Sarah Jeong. Here are a few of her tweets, you be the judge Deano. “Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” “Are white people genetically predisposed, to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Also, using the hashtag #CancelWhitePeople. Mmm Deano, what do you think? When the Times was contacted the communications team said Ms Jeong’s “journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her the target of frequent online attacks.” So, she remained on staff for a couple of years. So I guess that justifies things, eh Deano? Hard to argue that logic, huh pal? None of this got her fired, until a tweet saying, “The Times does not care about subscription cancellations, it’s one of the metrics to measure outrage.” She was immediately let go. Katie Kingsbury, a supervisor of the editorial page said, “she had been planning to leave for awhile”…….sure Katie, sure. Poor sweet thing, she thought subscription and money meant nothing to Slushy and Deano…..isn’t that sweet. When I called to get an answer to this controversy, your customer service rep started screaming Insurrection and Russian collusion, over and over. What is that about? Like you guys say, “you print the news that is fit to print.”

There is so much more, I would like to talk about Deano, but it will have to wait. Maybe next week, we could discuss, AG Garland perjuring himself before Congress. Siccing the KGB, I mean the FBI on Soccer Mom’s questioning CRT and ridiculous mask mandates. Or, Daddy Warbucks Mayorkas basically pleading the fifth or just complete incompetence, before Congress. Or, the 300 Americans still left for dead back In Afghanistan. Or maybe just bacon now costing $10.99 a pound and gas approaching $4.00 a gallon ($5.00, if you are lucky enough to live in California). As I have said before, this administration is tough to keep up with…just so many accomplishments!

On a personal note Deano, I would like to sign off today by paying my respects to my Uncle Bobby Cirino. A military veteran, a 27 year member of the FDNY, a great family man, and a truly great Uncle, who passed recently. May he Rest In Peace, he brought lots of love, joy and laughter to all. Incidentally Deano, he was also a big fan of your publication, the esteemed NY Times. Yep, whenever, he brought home a puppy or new parakeet cage, he would tell me to go out and get a copy of the NY Times!

The Forgotten Victims of COVID-19: 7 Groups Punished by Lockdowns

November 20, 2021/in Commentary, Elections, Healthcare, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The pandemic’s trail of destruction reaches far further than the death toll of the virus.

COVID-19 is the most deadly global pandemic since the 1918 influenza outbreak, claiming more than 5 million lives worldwide and counting. Well over 700,000 of these deaths occurred in the United States, which is comparable to the number of lives lost in the American Civil War.

Yet the pandemic’s trail of destruction reaches even further than this death toll. Millions of Americans have suffered as a result of lockdowns and other mitigation efforts. Here are some categories of forgotten victims, whose stories should also be heard.

1. The Untreated

The CDC found that by June 30, 2020, more than 40 percent of U.S. adults had avoided medical care due to concerns over COVID-19. In other cases, people who sought medical attention had their treatments postponed. Delayed treatment causes known conditions to worsen and prevents the discovery of new conditions. The Washington Post reports that a surge of advanced illnesses came to light in the spring of 2021, many of which developed due to inattention in 2020. Cancer screenings and treatments, for example, dramatically decreased during the pandemic. A study published in JCO Clinical Care Informatics found that “screenings for breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancers were lower by 85%, 75%, 74%, and 56%, respectively” in April 2020. The authors of the study conclude that these delays in treatment may “increase cancer morbidity and mortality for years to come.”

2. The Substance Abusers

There were also over 93,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020, according to CDC data, a staggering 29.4 percent increase from 2019. Addiction Center explains that “[a]ddiction, often referred to as the disease of isolation, has been affected by strict social distancing guidelines, working from home, and other factors.” Alcohol abuse also sharply increased in 2020. A RAND Corporation study found that the frequency of heavy drinking among women rose 41 percent during the pandemic. Other researchers found that participants who reported high degrees of stress due to COVID-19 consumed “significantly more alcohol than participants who did not report these high levels of stress.”

3. The Depressed

Depression among US adults tripled during the pandemic, according to one study, skyrocketing from 8.5 percent to 27.8 percent of those surveyed. Census Bureau data likewise indicates an exploding mental health crisis, with 41.1 percent of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder in January 2021, compared to 11.0 percent before the pandemic. These numbers suggest that tens of millions of Americans acquired depression during and likely as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and ensuing lockdowns. More than 26 percent of adults reported having a trauma-and stressor-related disorder attributable to the pandemic, according to a CDC study. The same survey found that over a quarter of people ages 18-24 had seriously considered suicide in June 2020.

4. The Abused

Domestic violence is being called a “pandemic within the COVID-19 pandemic,” with a systematic review of studies concluding that “[i]ncidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders.” One study explains that “stay-at-home orders may create a worst-case scenario for individuals suffering from DV” as isolation “may expose or worsen vulnerabilities due to a lack of established social support systems.”

5. The Jobless

More than 20 million Americans lost their jobs during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, surging the unemployment rate to 14.7 percent, the highest rate since the Great Depression. Unemployment is steadily declining now, but nearly 200,000 businesses closed permanently due to the pandemic, according to an estimate from the Federal Reserve Board, and many laid-off Americans remain jobless.

6. The Isolated Elderly

Many nursing home residents were also separated from their spouses, families, and even co-residents for over a year. Extreme isolation leads to mental and physical degradation, which the Associated Press estimates resulted in more than 40,000 excess “neglect deaths” from March to November 2020.

7. The Untaught

When schools closed, online education largely failed to adequately replace in-person learning. Research from NWEA discovered that students in the 2020-21 school year fell behind 8-12 percentile points in math and 3-6 points in reading, compared to historical trends. They concluded, moreover, that “American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, and Latinx students, as well as students in high-poverty schools were disproportionately impacted.” Beyond a reduction in learning, another study found that school closures “contribute to stress in parents and children” and can “threaten child growth and development.”

The ways society has suffered from the pandemic go on and on. To name just a few more:

Mask wearing has further isolated millions of Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing and depend on lip-reading for communication.
Many homeless shelters cut their capacities while other charities serving the homeless population closed their doors. More people slept on the street as a result, and homeless deaths increased significantly.
Electronic device usage dramatically increased during the pandemic, causing a variety of health problems including sleep disturbances and vision problems.
Many prisons suspended all visitations, making life even harder for an often-overlooked vulnerable population.

Some of these costs were preventable; others may not have been. Some are short-term problems; others will have lasting effects. Many of them resulted from lockdowns, restrictions, and fear-inducing messaging, illustrating how the way we respond to outbreaks can cause additional problems.

Human beings are not merely bodies subject to viral infection, but social and spiritual beings, dependent on established ways of life and vulnerable to fear and isolation. Culture and society evolved to fulfill the many physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of the population, and huge changes to this way of life cause unintended effects across the entire ecosystem. The past twenty months have demonstrated this more than ever.

As the virus continues to spread around the world, we must do what we can to protect people from all of the present dangers, including the immediate health risks of COVID-19 and as many of the problems compiled above as possible.

May our eyes recognize all the victims of this pandemic, our hearts break for them, our minds learn from their stories, and, most importantly, our actions prevent future disasters of this scale.

COLUMN BY

Nathan Mech

Nathan Mech is the Program Outreach Project Manager for the Acton Institute.

Here’s Everything That’s Wrong With the Build Back Better Spending Bill House Democrats Just Passed

November 20, 2021/in Economy, Elections, News, Politics, Social Issues, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

House Democrats voted Friday to pass the so-called “Build Back Better” plan, a multi-trillion-dollar welfare and climate change spending bill. They’re heralding it as a major accomplishment that will uplift struggling Americans and revitalize the economy. So, let’s review all the reasons it’s an utterly terrible piece of legislation.

First, the cost is astronomical. The Biden administration and its allies in Congress have repeatedly made false claims about its price tag. They’ve time and time again parroted the claim that the legislation “costs zero” because it supposedly does not add to the national debt and is “paid for” with new tax increases. (It actually does add to the debt, but that’s not the point). Yet this is an absurd argument. As I previously explained:

While it may be more fiscally responsible to pair spending increases with tax hikes, it doesn’t make them cost less. That’s like saying that buying groceries with cash instead of a credit card means the price tag is zero—it’s nonsensical. Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere. Whether it’s financed through additional debt or new taxes means that the consequences are different, yes, but there are still costs involved.

The true cost of the legislation, once one accounts for budget gimmicks and dishonest political rhetoric, is up to $4.9 trillion. That’s an astounding $32,000 per federal taxpayer.

And most of this money would go to wasteful government programs and counterproductive expansions of the welfare state.

For example, the bill funnels billions into electric vehicle subsidies that make almost zero difference on carbon emissions and pad the pockets of wealthy consumers. It similarly wastes billions funding a “Civilian Climate Corps” that would pay people to do environmental activism that even proponents admit won’t reduce emissions. It puts hundreds of billions toward subsidies for healthcare, childcare, and housing that will ultimately push the cost of these sectors even higher and prove counterproductive.

So, too, the Build Back Better agenda openly violates President Biden’s promises that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000. It raises billions in new taxes on nicotine products that millions of working-class Americans regularly consume and hikes corporate taxes that ultimately fall on workers’ shoulders via lower wages. It does all this while, rather hypocritically, giving the rich a net tax cut.

What do we get in exchange for this hodge-podge of wasteful spending and punitive tax hikes? Worse economic outcomes, not the revitalization that President Biden and his allies have promised.

Because the bill confiscates trillions from the private, productive sector and funnels it through the government’s political schemes, it will actually lead to lower wages, lower employment, and lower economic growth over the long-run. That’s the finding of analyses by the Wharton School of Business, the Tax Foundation, and too many other experts to count. (And no, the spending bill won’t reduce inflation as President Biden oddly claims).

In sum, the Build Back Better agenda is a government spending bill that’s uniquely terrible even by the abysmally low standards we expect from Congress. The good news is that it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere once it gets to the Senate.

House Passes Largest Amnesty in American History, Eyes Are Now on the Senate to Reject It

November 20, 2021/in Culture War, Elections, Immigration, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Federation for American Immigration Reform

The $1.75 trillion social spending package dubbed “Build Back Better” approved today in a nearly party-line vote is laden with costly provisions that primarily benefit narrow Democratic constituencies. None of the bill’s special interest giveaways will be more costly and more damaging long-term than the section that rewards millions of people who broke our immigration laws, all while providing business interests with even greater access to lower wage foreign labor, charges the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

“At a time when unpopular Biden administration policies have sparked the greatest surge in illegal immigration in American history, the razor-thin Democratic majority in the House is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging even more of it,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “It is a shameless effort on the part of the White House and Democratic leadership to enact radical immigration policy changes through budget reconciliation that could never be approved on their own merits.

“All eyes are now on the Senate to strip these provisions from the bill as it makes its way to the other side of the Hill,” Stein said. “The Senate parliamentarian has already rejected two previous attempts to hijack the reconciliation process to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and we expect that she will rule against this latest attempt.

“We call on senators from both parties to reject this naked attempt to subvert Senate rules in an effort to enact extreme, poorly-timed immigration policies that have little public support and advance no compelling interests of the American people. In the short-term, the immigration provisions of the bill would result in even more illegal immigration and cost burdens on American taxpayers. In the long-term, as the people gaining amnesty become eligible for the full panoply of public benefits, the price tag will balloon above a trillion.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghans Invade U.S. Cities — And Yours Could Be Next

FAIR Policy Analysis: Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376)