VIDEO: WATCH Beijing ☭ Biden gets Booed at Super Bowl

Tampa, Florida — President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden got booed during their video appearance at the Super Bowl LV in Tampa Florida on Sunday. In a pre-recorded video message, the Bidens talked about social distancing and the lives that have been lost during the pandemic, followed by a moment of silence. While the video was played on big screens just before kickoff, it sounded like people were booing.

Everyone knows the election was stolen.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: ABSOLUTE PROOF – Bombshell DOCUMENTARY of evidence of election rigging

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

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis keeps door open on 2024 presidential run

Watch the peerless Governor Ron DeSantis in his pre-Super Bowl interview. Can you imagine President Biden on the debate stage against this man? Governor DeSantis’ performance in Florida has been so outstanding, that it is becoming difficult to imagine not supporting him in 2024. He has everything you can possibly want in an effective candidate. He can also provide a real life contrast to the pro-lockdown Biden Administration.

Let’s see how President Biden contrasts his pro-lockdown policies with Governor DeSantis’ pro-freedom policies, that have much of the Northeast flocking to Florida.

Ron DeSantis keeps door open on 2024 presidential run

By Fox News, February 7, 2022

Gov. Ron DeSantis showed up on Fox and Friends Sunday and found himself for the second time in recent days addressing 2024 Presidential speculation.

The Governor did not close the door on the race in 2024, but as he did when asked late last week, the Governor will not say no to a run that would happen at the beginning of his second term, should he be reelected in 2022.

When host Will Cain asked DeSantis if he was going to take the 2024 plunge, the Governor laughed theatrically.

“We’ve got a great Governor’s election in 2022, which will be very important for our state and quite frankly I think, uh, you know, it gives us the ability to keep the momentum going, so that’s what we’re focused on.”

When asked if that was a no, the Governor demurred.

“That’s a ‘we have 2022 to worry about’,” the Governor said.

Indeed, the Governor is positioning himself nicely for whatever may come in the Governor’s race next year, with $9.5 million in his Friends of Ron DeSantis political committee. Though he has said that he doesn’t poll, allies do: the Florida Chamber of Commerce, as we reported on Jan. 29, had the Governor at 54% approval in its most recent canvass of the state.

Whether he’s running to serve the full four years is another matter, however, as enthusiasts in the conservative media continue to urge him toward the 2024 starting line. A recent Newsmax appearance saw the Governor address head on “speculation” that he would run for President.

As with the Newsmax hit, which allowed DeSantis to compare his leadership style favorably to that of other Republicans, the Fox News spot (purportedly “cohosting” a Super Bowl pregame segment) allowed him to go far afield of the action tonight at Raymond James Stadium.

Familiar tropes, such as maunderings about the left-liberal “partisan agenda” and narratives of the “corporate elite media” and Democratic-run “dystopias,” filled more of the segment than the Governor’s commentary on the Super Bowl, which he still sees as a Tampa Bay Buccaneers win.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Texas Governor Abbott working on legislation to prevent social media platforms from ‘canceling conservative speech’

Some pushback against the goose-stepping fascists.

Texas Governor Abbott working on legislation to prevent social media platforms from ‘canceling conservative speech’

Section 230, a provision in the Communications Decency Act, currently protects social media companies from liability in relation to content posted on their platforms by third parties

By: Lucas Manfredi, Business News, February 8, 2021:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced his office is working with State Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, on legislation that would “prevent social media providers like Facebook & Twitter from canceling conservative speech.”

“We filed a bill about this during the last session two years ago, it passed the Senate did not make it through the House,” Hughes told WFAA’s Inside Texas Politics in an interview on Sunday. “So the bill we’re getting ready to file will say that if a company discriminates against you, deplatforms you, blocks you, kicks you off based on your viewpoint, based on your politics, your religion, based on viewpoint discrimination, it will give you a way to get back online.”

HOW BIG TECH GOT EVEN BIGGER

According to Hughes, the previous bill looked at different options for how users can bring discrimination lawsuits against the social media giants.

“What we would like to do is to give any Texan who’s being discriminated against, the option to bring an action and we think that will get Facebook’s attention, get Twitter’s attention, and cause them to start treating Texans fairly,” Hughes added.

A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment while representatives for Facebook, Abbott, and Hughes did not immediately return FOX Business’ request for comment.

Hughes and Abbott are not the only government officials seeking to hold big tech accountable for actions on their platforms.

Democratic Sens. Mark Warner, a former tech entrepreneur from Virginia, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota have recently introduced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms Act (SAFE TECH Act), which would aim to mitigate harmful content currently protected by Section 230.

Section 230 is a provision in the Communications Decency Act which shields social media companies from liability in relation to content posted on their platforms by third parties.

“An original impetus for Section 230 was a state court ruling in 1995 that many consider flawed (and unlikely to have been adopted more broadly), holding an online bulletin board was liable for a user’s defamatory post because it moderated some content and had established content guidelines – signifying editorial control,” the senators wrote. “Section 230 provides “interactive computer services” with immunity from liability for the content of their users. And – reversing the poorly-reasoned 1995 case – ensures that these providers retain this broad immunity even when they engage in moderation efforts of user content.”

The proposed law would end Section 230 protections for ads or paid content, allow victims to seek court orders that would force Big Tech to crack down on misuse, and allow platforms to be sued in a number of situations where they are currently immune.

“Section 230 has provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to the largest platform companies even as their sites are used by scam artists, harassers, and violent extremists to cause damage and injury,” Warner said in a statement.

However, the bill stops short of repealing Section 230 altogether, as some critics have called for, including both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden.

“How [Big Tech companies] operate has a real-life effect on the safety and civil rights of Americans and people around the world, as well as our democracy,” Klobuchar added. “Holding these platforms accountable for ads and content that can lead to real-world harm is critical, and this legislation will do just that.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis keeps door open on 2024 presidential run

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

POLITICAL SHOW TRIAL: Impeachment of ‘Citizen’ Trump Begins

The party of treason flaunts its coup in this final act of persecution and as a bigger warning to any rational American who dares challenge the orthodoxy: You will be destroyed.

Daybreak Insider: The timeline (New York Magazine). This Washington Post article lays out the Democrats’ thinking (Washington Post). From Florida Congressman Bill Posey:

Now that President Trump’s term has ended and he is a private citizen, the impeachment articles are irrelevant, and the case is moot. The U.S. Constitution limits impeachment jurisdiction to the current president, vice president and sitting federal civil office holders. Additionally, the Constitution prescribes a punishment that shall not go beyond removal from office with the possibility of being disqualified from holding office in the future. Since President Trump no longer holds office, the penalty if convicted is meaningless. It’s politics at its worst and will only serve to further divide our nation (Townhall).

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLE: AP POLL: Half of Americans say democracy isn’t functioning properly

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

VIDEO: Pompeo on Biden’s ‘America is back’ — ‘Does he mean back to when ISIS controlled a caliphate the size of Britain?’

Whether or not that’s what Old Joe meant, that is exactly what Biden’s handlers are getting us into.

“Biden Claims ‘America Is Back’ Then Pompeo Shreds Him with Just 1 Mic-Dropping Line,”

by Kipp Jones, Western Journal, February 5, 2021:

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shredded President Joe Biden on Fox News on Thursday in response to Biden’s claim earlier that day that “America is back.”

Biden, delivering remarks at the U.S. State Department on Thursday during his first foreign policy address, portrayed the country as having faltered somehow during the four years of President Donald Trump’s leadership. Biden, in an (at-times) cringeworthy address filled with verbal miscues and his trademark problems with basic syntax, droned on for what felt like an eternity.

One line, however, stood out among others.

“And so — so is the message I want the world to hear today: America is back. America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy,” Biden said in his address, alongside current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Appearing on Fox News with former Republican congressman and new “Primetime” host Trey Gowdy, Pompeo — who held Blinken’s post from April of 2018 until Biden’s inauguration in January — hit the new president with a memorable one-liner that makes you wonder if Pompeo himself might not be planning a quiet retirement while Democrats eat at the Trump administration’s legacy like termites under a discarded railroad tie.

“Does he mean back to when ISIS controlled a caliphate in Syria that was the size of Britain? I hope not,” Pompeo said….

“President Trump and our team took that down,” Pompeo said of the now-former Islamic State caliphate.

The former head of the State Department continued hitting Biden over his posturing teleprompter speech. He nailed the Democrat over the mess left behind by the Obama administration, which Pompeo and Trump put a lot of effort into cleaning up.

“When he says ‘back,’ when America is back, does he mean back to letting China walk all over us, destroying millions of jobs in places like Kansas and South Carolina, that we know so well?” Pompeo said. “I hope that’s not what he means by back.

“[Biden] talked about allies. When he said go back, does he mean back to dissing allies and friends like Israel and treating the terrorists in Iran like friends by giving them $150 billion in pallets of cash?

“I don’t think the American people can afford to go back to eight more years of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. I hope they’ll move forward with a foreign policy look much more like our America first foreign policy,” Pompeo said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

If the New War on Terror Is Fought Like the Last One…

Congressman Ted Deutch calls out Greene for alleged anti-Semitism, but stays mum about Omar and Tlaib

Ilhan Omar claims Republicans are scapegoating her because she is a black Muslim woman

UK actress reveals she has left Islam, ‘was worried about publicly renouncing Islam due to fears of death threats’

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

PODCAST: Who Are The Domestic Terrorists?

The term “terrorist” came into vogue during the 1970’s as we experienced a spike in airline skyjackings. This, of course, led to the tightening of security measures at airports. I’m old enough to remember life before this, back when you just showed up at the airport, walked on the plane and handed your ticket to the stewardess. Yes, it was that easy, and flying was fun. Not anymore, TSA has seen to that.

Since then, use of the word “terrorist” became associated with atrocities in the Middle East, such as kidnappings, murders, bombings, extortion, and executions, such as cutting off heads. In this sense, terrorism has been around for hundreds of years, but more recently it came to the forefront in the latter part of the 20th century and is considered barbarous.

Please understand the purpose of terrorism, to wit; to use unlawful force or violence to intimidate people for political or social gain. It is a technique used to get one’s way, particularly if the opposition is too large to fight one-on-one. Consequently, the terrorist turns to clandestine tactics to intimidate others.

Today, we are hearing a lot about “domestic terrorists,” meaning a group of people in this country who are trying to use savage methods to get their way. Even President Biden, in his inaugural address, alluded to such a phenomenon, “And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.”

Other prominent Democrats have been repeating this mantra as well, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer. Much of this is designed to convict President Donald Trump after impeachment, but it goes after his supporters as well. Recently, a group of Senate Democrats introduced a resolution to review “domestic terrorist” threats by extremist groups. It has even been suggested that the Republican Party be placed on such a domestic terrorist watch list. Again, this is designed more to intimidate Trump supporters than anything else. Make no mistake though, their constant references to “White Supremacist” groups is a swipe at Republicans and not the KKK.

These same Democrats have remained stone silent on the violent actions of groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) who actively participated in the 2020 “Summer of Hate” where buildings were invaded, burned, looted, and local citizens viciously attacked. They were certainly not “peaceful protesters.” This means “domestic terrorism” has two different interpretations depending on the political party you embrace.

The use of the expression “white supremacy” is a clever attempt to label all Republicans as racists and should be punished accordingly, including the termination of their free-speech rights. The Democrats’ loath some characterization of Trump supporters is reminiscent of Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, as evil parasites feeding on the Aryan master race. Yet, the Democrats seem to have no problem threatening Republicans:

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them” – Rep. Maxine Waters – June 25, 2018.

This is much more threatening than anything spoken by President Trump at the “Stop the Steal” protest of January 6th, yet while the Democrats claim Waters was only kidding, they are Hell-bent on impeaching the former president.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has even gone so far as to brand Congressional Republicans as white supremacists, “This term (2021) there are legitimate white supremacist sympathizers that sit at the heart and at the core of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives” (as told to MSNBC, Jan 28, 2021).

By doing so, AOC is declaring them racists and, as such, unfit to serve in Congress. This, of course, is fallacious. I just wish AOC was aware of her own party’s role in the preservation of slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, and Jim Crowe laws. She obviously doesn’t remember the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” incident in the 1960’s by Alabama Governor George Wallace (a prominent Southern Democrat). All of this is in sharp contrast to the Republicans who promoted freedom and reconstruction, which is all conveniently forgotten. AOC’s sense of history is embarrassing.

Let us also understand this recent push to declare groups of people as “domestic terrorists”; by doing so, this means they can be treated like any other terrorist group and subject to prosecution under the Patriot Act, which is certainly not a misdemeanor. It also means the federal government can spy on you, as well as search and seize your belongings without a subpoena.

So, the question remains, who are the domestic terrorists? That depends on your political persuasion and the violence committed. If you are a Democrat, you point at your political opponents, the Republicans, for whom you brand as “white supremacists” a la Identity Politics. If you are a Republican, you point at those vandalizing and creating mayhem in our cities, such as Antifa, BLM, and those sponsoring these groups.

So, to be correctly labeled a terrorist, you have to ask which side commits true violence and for what purpose, specifically intimidation. If it doesn’t pass this simple acid-test, they are not terrorists, but political pawns instead. All of this is aimed at changing our perspective and a part of a larger picture of de-programming the citizens of this country.

Keep the Faith!

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

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

The Misadventures of a Pro-life Senator

Hadley Arkes on Sen. Ben Sasse, who champions pro-life bills by promising Democrats they won’t affect abortion access, an appeal that fools no one.  


In the British comic Review in the 1960s, Beyond the Fringe, a commanding officer in the Royal Air Force sought to persuade a pilot to go on a kamikaze mission.  “Smedley,” he said, “we need someone at this moment to make a [Grand] Futile Gesture.”

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska has made his career with Grand Futile Gestures, not because his policies have been wanting in merit, but because he has shown little interest in doing the grinding work of a legislator in working out bills in committee and persuading his colleagues.

When he landed in the Senate in 2015, he quickly took hold of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.  That is the sequel to our Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act (2002), the bill that sought to protect the child who survived an abortion.  The new bill would restore the serious penalties that had been stripped from the original Act.

Sasse rushed to be the sponsor of the bill, which would pass by hefty margins in a Republican-controlled House in 2015 and 2018.   But Sasse never seemed able to do the work that would bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.   He was finally able to get the bill to the floor in February 2020, when the Democrats had control of the House, and there was no chance of passing it.  The bill gathered 56 votes in favor of bringing it to the floor, but under the rules of a filibuster,  60 votes were needed to put the bill on the floor for the decisive vote.

Sasse had made a fine, impassioned speech in favor of the bill,  which he knew would be mainly a flying of the flag.  His object was just to preserve the awareness of the bill as an ongoing part of our public business.  Over the past several years some of us have made attempts to sharpen and improve that bill, but our friends among other senators have been reluctant to make any move without the consent of the sponsor of the bill.  And yet that sponsor was not to be found.  He was usually elsewhere, giving speeches.

Sasse’s persistence then has been offset by his inattentiveness, but that persistence still deserves praise.  He introduced the bill anew on January 26th, with the Republicans no longer in control of the Senate.   He was forced, then, to bring the bill forth in the mayhem of the Vote-a-Rama:  The Democrats were trying to pass a massive budget as a matter of “budgetary reconciliation,” requiring only a majority vote (no need to get 60).

The occasion triggered a host of amendments on all kinds of subjects, as senators sought to tack their own pet measures on a bill bound to pass.  But amendments could be ruled out if they were thought to have only a tenuous connection to the budget.  And Sasse’s amendment was indeed ruled out; it could not come to a vote.

Sasse made once again a moving case for the bill. “Infanticide,” he said, “is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about. Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?”

Sasse put his accent there by appealing to people on the other side that this bill was simply about “protecting babies that have already been born and are outside the womb.”  But in making that appeal he went overboard and gave an account of the bill that was at odds with the purpose that had brought forth the bill.  And so Sasse found himself insisting to his colleagues that “this bill has nothing to do with abortion itself. Nothing in this bill changes the slightest letter of Roe v. Wade. Nothing touches abortion access in this bill.”

But that appeal to the other side fools no one.  The Democrats understand that this modest bill is of course about abortion.  The strategy of the first Born-Alive Act in 2002 was to lure people from the other side by showing the reach of that right to abortion, a reach that makes even pro-choicers recoil.

And from there we might start rolling back that practice of abortion step by step.  We would ask: What was different about that child five minutes before it was born – or five days, five weeks, five months?  The other side understood that their position could come unraveled.  On that point they were never fooled, and we had never sought to fool them.

But our deeper purpose was to establish that this matter was not the sole business of the courts.  We sought to remind people of the constitutional grounds on which Congress may indeed legislate on this matter and act directly to protect unborn children.  We invoked a key line from Chief Justice Marshall in the classic case of Cohens v. Virginia (1822), when he remarked that any question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States may rightly come within the reach of the judicial branch of the federal government.

And we then asserted the corollary:

If the Supreme Court can articulate new “rights” under the Constitution, the legislative branch must be able to vindicate the same rights under the same Clause in the Constitution where the Court claims to have found them.  And in filling out those rights, the Congress, at the same time, may mark their limits.  The one thing that should not be tenable under this Constitution is that the Court may articulate new rights – and then assign to itself a monopoly of the legislative power in shaping those rights.

A pro-life Republican Congress will not summon the conviction to legislate directly to protect babies in wombs until the members of Congress understand again that they do, in fact, bear the authority to do precisely that.  The score:  Ben Sasse fools no one on the other side, while he distracts his colleagues, and even the pro-lifers, from what they need to know in getting on with their work.

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

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

Ronald Reagan at 110: Twenty of His Best Quotes on Freedom, Government, and America

Unlike many US presidents, Ronald Reagan understood there was no loftier achievement for any society than freedom.


Saturday marks the 110th anniversary of the birth of America’s 40th president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, in Tampico, Illinois in 1911.

Now almost two decades since he died at 93, things he said are far better remembered than the things critics said about him. And that is a good thing, because Reagan got more things right than most of them did.

When Reagan first flirted with the Republican nomination in 1968, I was not quite 15 years of age. I was intrigued because his criticism of big government resonated with my youthful instincts. When he challenged incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, I cheered him on. Like it was yesterday, I remember his smashing victory in the North Carolina primary, then his sweep of every delegate in Texas, followed by a nail-biting, narrow loss to Ford at the GOP convention. After he trounced Jimmy Carter in 1980, I was teaching at Northwood University, where I wheeled in a TV set for one of my classes to watch his inaugural address live.

It is hard to describe today how I felt 40 years ago as Reagan took office. Up until then, it seemed as though freedom was losing every battle, everywhere. The Soviets were on the march in the world. Stagflation at home was the new normal as Jimmy Carter seemed incapable of anything more than lecturing us to get used to it. Then into the White House came a man of boundless optimism, of infectious confidence in American freedom and exceptionalism. It gave me hope at the same time my libertarian principles reminded me, “This is government. Be prepared for disappointments.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Reagan three times—once during his 1980 campaign, then during my own (for U.S. Congress) in 1982, and then for lunch with a small group at the White House in 1987. I will never forget his uncanny ability to put one immediately at ease and to show interest in whoever he was talking to. Yes, he was an actor, but I believe his character was the real source of so much good in him, including the sincerity he exuded and the faith in free people he so eloquently and repeatedly expressed. He was the best president of my lifetime, and likely the only one who regularly read FEE publications.

This is not to say that Reagan was perfect. I wish he had vetoed more bills. I wish he had understood the harm of the drug war. And because he was too much of a nice guy, he probably didn’t fire or criticize enough bad apples in government. But remember a couple things: He was not a dictator; the opposition party controlled the House all of his eight years and greeted his proposed spending cuts as “dead on arrival.” His focus on the big-ticket issues—rolling back the Evil Empire, cutting punitive tax rates, taming price inflation and reducing over-regulation—sometimes prompted him to compromise on other matters to save political capital for these more critical ones.

For the most part, and more than any of his fellow presidents since Coolidge, Reagan knew that there was no loftier achievement for any society than freedom. We do ourselves a service to get re-acquainted with that notion. Recognizing that for many reasons (some no fault of his), Reagan’s rhetoric sometimes soared higher than actual results, I offer here some of the best things he said on the subject.

  1. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free. – 1961
  2. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. – 1961
  3. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. – 1964
  4. Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. – 1965
  5. There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. – 1975
  6. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people’s weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled. – 1975
  7. The size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern. – 1981
  8. If the big spenders get their way, they’ll charge everything on your Taxpayers Express Card. And believe me, they never leave home without it. – 1984
  9. If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. – 1981
  10. Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. – 1981
  11. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? – 1981
  12. We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. – 1981
  13. It is time for us to realize that we’re too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope. We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we’re in a time when there are no heroes, they just don’t know where to look. – 1981
  14. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. – 1986
  15. How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.– 1987
  16. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. – 1986
  17. You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy. – 1988
  18. I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts. – 1989
  19. Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way. – 1989
  20. Let’s close the place down and see if anybody notices. – 1995 (on the federal government shutdown)

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Parler and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is www.lawrencewreed.com.

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

No, We Don’t Need a ‘Reality-Czar’: Let Truth and Falsehood Grapple

It is hard to see how Americans’ well-being would be advanced by a ‘reality czar.”


New York Times writer Kevin Roose recently surveyed “our truth-challenged information ecosystem” and found a proliferation of “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions.” As he put it, that limits the Biden administration’s ability to “unite a country,” because “millions of people have chosen to create their own version of reality.” In response, he called for the creation of a “reality czar”-led government task force to root out disinformation.

Roose admits such a call for a “truth commission” sounds “dystopian,” before proceeding to ignore many ways it would be exactly that. For instance, the Times, the Biden campaign, the Democrat leadership, and others on board with the idea have come nowhere close to pursuing “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Yet despite a history of disseminating misinformation, clear biases, and suppression of those with different views, they would select the arbiters of Orwellian truth.

So who could be trusted as the reality czar? No one.

Just ask Democrats why they never suggested having one when Trump was in office. In politics, truth is subservient to power. But since any attempt to provably establish the truth would be littered with obstacles and controversies, and often beyond possibility, while creating a substantial threat to Americans’ freedoms, only someone who was indisputably committed to both truth and freedom could possibly be trusted to lead such an enterprise. And there are precious few who would qualify. If he wasn’t long dead, I would nominate John Milton.

Why Milton?

Before America’s founding, he argued for freedoms of speech and the press, and against censorship, in England. His defense of freedom of conscience later powerfully resonated with America’s founders, reflected in our First Amendment. So it is worth considering the principles he would follow to establish truth and preserve freedom, in his own words.

  1. If it come to prohibiting, there is aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself.
  2. Truth and understanding are not such wares as to be monopolized.
  3. When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty obtained that wise men look for.
  4. Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
  5. Truth…Let her and falsehood grapple.
  6. Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
  7. Truth…needs no policies or stratagems…to make her victorious. These are the shifts and the defenses that error uses against her power.
  8. There is no learned man but will confess be hath much profited by reading controversies–his senses awakened, his judgment sharpened, and the truth which he holds firmly established…should it not at least be tolerable and free for his adversary to write…it follows then, that all controversy being permitted, falsehood will appear more false, and truth the more true; which must needs conduce much to the general confirmation of an implicit truth.
  9. Discern…in what things persuasion only is to work.
  10. No institution which does not continually test its ideals, techniques and measure of accomplishment can claim real vitality.
  11. Liberty hath a sharp and double edge, fit only to be handled by just and virtuous men; to bad and dissolute, it becomes a mischief unwieldy in their own hands: neither is it completely given, but by them who have the happy skill to know what is grievance and unjust to a people, and how to remove it wisely; what good laws are wanting, and how to frame them substantially, that good men may enjoy the freedom which they merit, and the bad the curb which they need.
  12. None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license, which never hath more scope than under tyrants.
  13. How oft [have] nations gone corrupt…by their own devices brought down to servitude.
  14. What do terms…which are at once corrupt and misapplied, denote but a people…ripe for servitude?
  15. Is it just or reasonable, that…voices against the main end of government should enslave [those] that would be free?
  16. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always right to win it and to keep it…be the voices ever so numerous that oppose it.

In addition, Milton would have some other important qualifications in evaluating reality. He would not be misled by government promises that threaten the rights that comprise our liberty, just because the government doesn’t mention that fact.

Similarly, when benefit promises far out-weigh promised exactions from citizens, he would recognize that they are omitting some of the truth. As one of history’s most important poets, he would have expertise in what should be considered poetic license. As the second most important author in the English language, after Shakespeare, he would certainly also be alert to the abuse of language not in pursuit of truth, but of power over others. Just some of the words that have had their meanings warped are unity, we, rights, freedom, fair, justice, social, capitalism, need, and greed. And there has been plenty of added word twisting recently, with insurrection being near the top of the list.

It is obvious that discussing John Milton as a reality or truth czar is not a serious proposal. But that discussion reveals the position’s necessary requirements of the love of truth and the love of freedom our country was founded on.

Further, it shows that anyone fully meeting those requirements, if given the task, would find a great deal about the positions, promises and policies of those who appointed them both untrue and unworthy of freedom.

Consequently, no such czar would ever be appointed. And it is hard to see how Americans’ well-being would be advanced by anyone less trustworthy for the job.

COLUMN BY

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

The Power of Otherization

Otherization is the age-old phenomenon advanced by individuals who have a sense of their own specialness in the world.  The only antidote for their destructive behavior is for the “others” to assert their dignity and reclaim their culture, civilization, and country.


Some time ago, it was suggested that I submit my essays to a respected online publisher. It was accepted, but when it came time to reading the published piece, I realized it was missing my explanation, the point of my effort. I checked it against the original and wondered how the line had been dropped. I called the editor’s attention to what I thought was an inadvertent glitch, only to learn that he had removed it intentionally, not realizing its cruciality. After a few words of explanation, he agreed to its reinsertion, but the initial readers had been robbed of my intent.

It happened yet again.  Finding no spelling or grammatical errors and, I assumed, feeling a need to “do something,” he took an action that suited his own predisposition.  In his own defense, he cited his credentials.  What good are credentials when the patient has died?  He said it was not his company’s policy to check rewrites with the author, and I explained it was not my policy to have my name attached to changes I’d not endorsed.  And that was that.

Now, years later, I sent my recent essay, “Wasted Lives,” to an Israeli publisher that had been posting my work for numerous years.  I was one of several listed as bloggers.  When I searched my work on the site this time, I found my essay was replete with typographical or spelling errors, sarcastic parenthetical remarks, one or two unusual introductory insertions, and a postscript following my closing quote from a prominent author.  I contacted the editor to ask what happened and realized that she had taken a particular interest in my essay. In fact, she posted it on the op-ed page, which, apparently, then gave her leave to insert and embellish at will.  Her interest was personal, and her interjections were to the situations, quite unnecessary since I provided my opposition to the propaganda in ensuing paragraphs and links.  She was obviously slighted by my displeasure, did not apologize for her blunders, and the piece, complete with the nonsense and misspellings, remains buried forever under my authorship.  That was also that.

These incidents, while certainly small potatoes, are representative of something much larger that we are seeing in our world today.

There are many in positions of varying degrees of influence who have come to believe that they have both the power and perhaps divine right to scrutinize the deeds of others and take any actions they deem appropriate for their own objectives.  They have become the superior beings over the inferior ones who must obey.  The superiors have the right to “otherize,” to wield their power, to view and treat other persons or groups as intrinsically different from and alien to themselves.  “Otherization,” the noun, describes the condition in which an individual or group is excluded by an artificially established norm, thereby creating the discord endemic to a class system.

In our own schools, academia has infused a program that, under the guise of diversity, has divided the children against themselves, taught them to otherize by ethnicity, race, sex, and country of origin.  Instead of equality in laws and opportunities, they are taught equity, for equal outcome, which is unfairly regulating opportunities and treatment for enforced conformity.  The current vilification that has captured and manipulated our population is turning people of color against all Caucasians, uniting against so-called “white supremacism.”  They are first imbued with a sense of victimization, resentment and anger, then inflated with an entitlement, superiority, and need for revenge.  They are never taught that all of mankind’s history is a story of enslavement of all people, and that we in the west have made the abolition of slavery the law of our land.

The new powerful are then spurred to riot, damage, loot, cause harm and pain, while being exonerated of conscience and remorse.  These are our own “jihadis,” protected by their uniform black clothes and masks to erase detection, shame and facial expressions.  They are united to loot, set fires, bring down monuments to erase our history, and blamelessly attack police and everyday citizens.  This power of destruction, permitted, and even fortified, to flourish with payments and donated signs and weapons, enriches them to continue.  Their destruction has now reached a price tag of many hundreds of millions of dollars.

We know the schools are complicit.  For too long our revolutionary academia abandoned their dedication to a good education and replaced it with social justice ideology – with the goal of redistribution of everything for equity – the same outcome regardless of talent, ability, hard work, acquired knowledge and achievement.  The promise of equal opportunity penned in the US Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson has been corrupted by the socialists; the lot of some coming at the expense of others.  The elements of tribalism and discord are overcoming civilization and the cardinal values we hold dear.”

Beyond the foregoing luminaries are those of far greater influence, the social-media ubermenchen of the Internet or World Wide Web, whose world view is socialism, globalism, and intolerance of the “others.”  Being bestowed with enormous wealth, they therefore presume that they must possess exceptional wisdom.  Known as “Big Tech” (BT), they use their technological muscle to censor, shadow ban, and data mine to swing our country’s ideology to the left.  Established in the milieu of freedom of speech, intellect, information, expression, differing ideas and honest debate, BT not only discourages these ideals but is capable of removing them entirely.  Any topic researched may come up its opposite, to the leftist platform, or completely obliterated.

They are self-anointed standard bearers whose rules are resolute.   Views deemed “hate speech,” without explanation or defense, are eradicated.  The culprits are Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Youtube, which limit “dangerous content” (others’ views) and have gone so far as to remove access to communication necessities from the President of the United States.  If they can do it to him, why not to the rest of us?  A 2020 survey showed that Americans believed Big Tech has too much power, their reach immeasurable, their damage unbounded.

Their power extends to political coercion, control of information to affect public relations and opinions.  Suggestions of buyers’ remorse with regard to the election of Biden-Harris are suddenly surfacing as voters are learning what was previously withheld – information detrimental to their Constitutional rights.  The acolytes of the elites further conducted ballot harvesting, tampering and stuffing; voter suppression, and illegal poling practices.  Their minions threaten job loss and even bodily harm. All of this is only acceptable to a self-proclaimed elite who think in terms of ‘them’ and ‘us,’ classic otherization.

The winner was announced, the installation made – of a mentally impaired man who is illegally using the title and position of President of the United States.  This was a dream come true, not for us, but for former President Obama, who openly declared that he wanted a third term as president, because he is assuredly pulling the strings in the Deep State.  He now has four more years to bring to ruin the country that he and his wife openly detest and disrespect.  And should the illegitimacy be challenged, a tall wall with razor wire (a wall that Democrats eschewed for our southern border) encircles the compound in Washington.  Further, 27,000 armed National Guards also patrol, a sure-fire sign of a tyrannical regime’s preparedness to fight the 80 million flag-waving, freedom-loving American citizens, the Others.

We are now as close as we could ever have imagined to being a totalitarian state, with companies closing and rampant job loss, citizens deprived of access to communication and other basic services, opinions stifled and threats of re-education camps or classes.  The left has ample control over every facet of our society and, cleverly, has shifted the blame to the victims, the Others, the inferior white Europeans whose ancestry built the best free nation in the world, the ones who said we have a Republic – if we can keep it.

©Tabitha Korol. All rights reserved.

EVIL: Biden ☭ Cancels Elon Musk’s Space-X Program

The hatred of the good for being the good.

The left (the State) despises Americanism (individualism).

Musk is his own man — and he pissed off the fascists.

Biden cancels Elon Musk’s adventures in space

New president is making his space policy increasingly clear: America will remain grounded for the time being

By Brandon J. Weichert, Washington Times, Wednesday, February 3, 2021:

The United States is in a titanic struggle with the People’s Republic of China for the dominance of space.

Although the Americans have been to the moon and sent multiple, advanced probes to the surface of Mars, since the end of the Cold War, U.S. space policy has languished in neutral. Due to this, new competitors, namely China, have arisen to challenge the dominance of the Americans in the ultimate strategic high ground of space.

China has grand ambitions for space. Not only does China plan on beating the Americans to the Martian surface by the end of the decade, but Beijing wants control of the vital orbits around the Earth. By controlling these orbits, China’s military would enjoy significant advantages over the American military. Beyond that, China plans on strip-mining the moon for valuable resources.

The Americans, though, have always had a silver bullet in its competition with China for space dominance: a vibrant and innovative private sector. Specifically, the growing number of private space start-ups, such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Thanks to his reusable rocket design, Mr. Musk’s company has already cut down on launch costs by a staggering 40 percent. SpaceX insists that it can cut those costs down further. What’s more, SpaceX rockets are entirely indigenously produced. And as the ongoing race to Mars between the United States and China intensifies, Mr. Musk’s new deep space reusable rocket Starship, might just be the vehicle that gets American astronauts to Mars before China can get its taikonauts to the Red Planet.

Certainly, the Starship reusable rocket is unproven. In another America, this experimental craft would elicit wonder and its development would be encouraged. The Trump administration exhorted SpaceX to vigorously move ahead with its Starship program.

The United States, however, has a new president. And President Joe Biden is making his space policy preferences increasingly clear: America will remain grounded for the time being.

The FAA did not cite its reasoning behind ordering the cancellation of the launch. Many have speculated that the cancellation was brought about due to safety concerns. After all, in December 2020, SpaceX did a test of the experimental rocket. The Starship prototype made it to a height of 41,000 feet. Once it reoriented itself, in order to allow for the rocket to land vertically, the great silver spacecraft promptly did a bellyflop that ended in a massive explosion.

Despite this, SpaceX learned many valuable lessons from the December failure that were to be applied to the Starship launch in January. In science, the only lasting failure occurs when one does not test a new idea or hypothesis. This axiom is especially true in the context of the new space race between the United States and China.

It’s likely that the FAA’s decision to cancel the launch is part of a wider Biden administration effort undo the Trump administration’s vibrant space policy. Plus, former President Trump’s space vision was explicitly aimed at countering advances made by China in space. It is unlikely that the Biden administration seeks to continue that policy, as the Biden team attempts to stabilize deteriorating relations with Beijing over the next few years.

Read the rest…..

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

‘BURN IT DOWN!’ Left-wing Antifa, BLM rioters attack police, threaten to TORCH D.C.

This is what a real insurrection looks like.

‘Burn it down!’ Antifa, BLM protesters clash with police, threaten to torch DC

Left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter extremists marched through Washington, D.C., on Saturday as part of a “DC Queer and Trans Black History Month March and Rally.”

Organized on Twitter, the event began at 2:00 p.m. but wound up lasting all afternoon and night, eventually devolving into the extremists walking down residential neighborhoods while chanting, “If we don’t get it, burn it down!”

The event was organized by Palm Collective, a radical group of self-described “racial justice warriors,” and Total Liberation Collective, a radical group “dedicated to the abolition of all structures of oppression that impede total liberation.”

To be clear, BLM extremists believe virtually everything is a form of “oppression,” including but not limited to the nuclear family, the scientific method, work ethic, politeness, proper English, self-reliance, logical thinking, time schedules, etc.

Footage recorded from earlier Saturday afternoon showed attendees spouting radical rhetoric about how “cops and the Klan go hand in hand” (Fact-check: FALSE) and how “America hates black people” (Fact-check: FALSE).

The adoption of BLM’s radical rhetoric by practically every corporation and institution in America easily disproves the latter claim, as does the election and reelection of former President Barack Hussein Obama, and election of Vice President Kamala Harris.

The march grew more volatile in the evening, with the extremists tussling with the police, bothering diners and chanting veritable calls to violence.

Watch:

Several times during the course of the march, the extremists complained about a perceived double standard in regard to the police monitoring them.

Watch:

History suggests a double standard does exist, but in the exact reverse. Whenever conservatives have attempted to protest anything at all, be it election results or coronavirus lockdown policies, they’ve been attacked and smeared by the entire national press.

Only once, on Jan. 6th, did right-wing protesters lose control and begin rioting. For that, they’ve justifiably faced widespread, bipartisan scorn and condemnation.

Meanwhile, even after rioting for months, injuring hundreds of officers, destroying hundreds of buildings and engendering the deaths of dozens of people, BLM and Antifa extremists are still treated with kid gloves.

So yes, a double standard does exist.

https://twitter.com/vancampen62/status/1347604659406565377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347604659406565377%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2F2021%2F02%2F07%2Famid-biden-domestic-extremism-concerns-antifa-blm-protesters-clash-with-police-threaten-to-burn-down-dc-1026780%2F

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

‘O Allah kill the disbelievers’: Jihadis in Kenya release video of raid on U.S. base, vow more attacks on U.S. targets

Old Joe has emboldened jihadis not just in Iran, but all over the world. But what is with all the Islamic terminology in the communiques from al-Shabaab quoted below? Don’t these guys know that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam? John Kerry should fly his private jet over to Kenya and explain the true, peaceful Islam to them.

“Al-Shabab Releases Video Of Attack On U.S. Base In Kenya, Vows To Continue Attacks On U.S. Targets,” MEMRI, January 31, 2021 (thanks to the Geller Report):

January 31, 2021:

The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.

On January 29, 2021, Al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen released a new video documenting the preparations for the raid it conducted on the U.S. military base at Camp Simba near Manda Bay, Kenya on January 5, 2020 in which three Americans were killed and several aircraft destroyed.[1] The 55-minute video was produced by the group’s Al-Kata’ib media wing and distributed by the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) on its Rocket.Chat platform and on Telegram. The video features never-before-seen footage of a meeting between Al-Shabab leader Abu Ubaydah Ahmad Omar and the attackers; training and preparations for the raid; final messages from the attackers; and drone footage of the raid in progress. The video is interspersed with archival audio clips from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri and past leaders Osama bin Laden, Anwar Al-‘Awlaki, Abu Mus’ab Abd Al-Wudoud, and others. It stresses that the Manda Bay raid was perpetrated as part of Al-Qaeda’s “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized” campaign which was launched in response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.[2]

The excerpts in the following report are based on the English translation provided by Al-Shabab:

The video opens with audio clips of bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri describing Al-Qaeda’s commitment to the cause?] of Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It then shows the meeting of Al-Shabab leader Abu Ubaydah with the men who subsequently carried out the attack. In his address to his men, Abu Ubaydah rejoices that Al-Shabab is currently “in a direct confrontation with the U.S. He instructs the men to confirm the killing of wounded U.S. soldiers, and states that their top priority is to destroy as many U.S. aircraft as possible at the base.

Abu Ubaydah begins his speech by celebrating the fact that his group is fighting the U.S., and speaks about the U.S. base in Manda Bay and its importance. He boasts that in spite of all its intelligence capabilities the U.S. is completely unaware of the impending attack “You are headed towards the American military base in Kenya. Allahu Akbar! Our war has passed through several stages, hasn’t it? … Today, we are engaged in a direct war against the Americans. As you sit here now, do you think that the Americans know that you are about to attack them? No they don’t. They can continue to boast about having intelligence, advanced technology, surveillance cameras and drones but know that you are more powerful than their drones. The U.S. military base is located in Kenya. It is known as Manda Bay base and it is situated in Lamu County. It is a secret military base on which the Mujahideen have conducted extensive reconnaissance and you will soon be shown more information regarding the base.

“The base is one of the major military bases belonging to US-AFRICOM in East Africa, particularly in Lamu, Kenya. It is the equivalent of Ballidoogle in Kenya and that is where you are headed. It is a base of evil and disbelief. It is the base from where attacks against innocent Muslims are launched. That is where you are headed. You are going to retaliate on behalf of those innocent Muslims and on behalf of the Mujahideen leaders who were killed by the Americans. They are in an alliance with the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF). The base serves to protect the Kenyan invaders and train their forces. That is where you are headed. Therefore, you will engage the Americans directly in a close combat.”

Abu Ubaydah then prioritizes the targets for the attackers after they enter the base:

“When you reach the base, know that your mission, which the Muslims are waiting for you to accomplish, is to kill the American forces present there and finish off their wounded. Your mission is to destroy and set ablaze the equipment and military hardware present in the base. There are many military aircraft in the base and you will be shown a visual evidence of them. We will confront the Americans who are flying above us now in their own base. Yes, you will encounter many military aircraft in the base and destroying them should be your primary objective. If you used to hide from those planes under the trees, you will soon target them in their airfield. The blaze of the burning aircraft should be visible to all the people in Lamu and we will watch it through the lens of Al-Kataib Foundation. Beware of leaving anything intact. Target the military aircraft in particular and proceed according to priority. Your first priority is to destroy the aircraft in the base, and then followed by the armored military vehicles and storage facilities.”

Abu Ubaydah rallies his fighters, hailing them as “soldiers of Allah” and saying that many other jihad fighters will follow in their path:

“I hope that base becomes the place where we hear the defeat of the disbelievers, where you attain your martyrdom and that this operation soothes the hearts of the Muslims. Know that other military detachments will come after you, by the permission of Allah. Your blood will draw other Mujahideen to the cause, like a magnet… Allah will defeeat the enemy and protect the religion through your blood… Are the disbelievers able to penetrate the Wilaayaat [the Somali territories controlled by Al-Shabab] and abduct the teachers? No, they cannot, because there are Mujahideen fighters in front of them…”

Abu Ubaydah encourages Muslims, especially those in the Horn of Africa, to join the ranks of his group: “We tell the Muslims living in the lands of Kufr, particularly the youth in East Africa, that it is obligatory upon you to make Hijra [to immigrate to a Muslim land, i.e. to join Al-Shabab] and wage Jihad. On whom do you entrust the responsibility of defending your religion, preserving the honour of Muslim women and fighting the enemies of Islam? How is it acceptable to any Muslim with a conscience that young disbelieving men of your age plunder your wealth, violate your dignity, and send to prison whomever they will among you whenever they will and torture him? It is only through Jihad that you can regain your honour and dignity, as well as a pleasant life in both this world and the hereafter and a justification in front of Allah. Therefore, rise and stand up for Jihad. Emulate your brothers who made Hijra before you and sacrificed their lives for the sake of Allah…”

Drone footage of burning aircraft in Camp Simba

He concludes his exhortations with a prayer: “O Allah kill the disbelievers who are hindering people from Your path and are belying Your messengers and cast upon them Your punishment and torment. O Allah kill the disbelievers from the people of the Book…” This segment is followed by a scene in which Abu Ubaydah is seen handing the “flag of tawhid[3] [which symbolizes the Islamic concept of monotheism] to the commander of the operation, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, who states: “By the will of Allah, this banner will not be raised in any other place other than the American base in Manda Bay…”

The video then shows original footage of the attack which Al-Shabab filmed with drones, against a backdrop of audio from Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki and the commander of the U.S. military’s AFRICOM. The footage shows fire and smoke rising from Camp Simba.

This section is followed by a commemoration of each of the five operatives who participated in the attack, including a short biography and each one’s final message. The common themes among all the messages are threats to “Jews and Americans;” the vow that the attacks in the framework of the “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized” campaign will continue; and the reassurance to the Palestinians that Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab are committed to fighting for the “liberation” of Al-Aqsa, and so on. The fighters all wear red headbands bearing the slogan “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized.”

Commander of the raid, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, wearing a red headband with the slogan “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized.”

For example, in his final message before embarking on the operation, the leader of the raid, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, declares:

“O Jews and Americans! Do not think that we are wearing these headbands for adornment or for exhibition purposes only. Know that Al-Quds [Jerusalem] belongs to the Muslims and it will forever belong to the Muslims. It does not belong to filth like you who spread corruption in the land. O America! If you did not learn anything from the operations in 14 Riverside [in Nairobi] and Ballidoogle,[4] then you will now learn a lesson that you did not expect. What is coming your way is not words, it is action, and not just mere action, but rather a great deal of action. Masha-Allah, Allah made it possible for the brothers to carry out the operations in 14 Riverside and Ballidoogle with success. May Allah accept their martyrdom as they proved that they are the brave ones and you are the cowards. Right now, we are on our way to continue in this series of operations and we will not stop there; many other brothers will come after us. By the will of Allah, we will not stop until the Shari’ah rules over the whole world and the Muslims live in a state of glory while you, the Kufr, live in humiliation. Islam will rule over the whole world. The word of Allah will be uppermost and the word of those who disbelieved will be lowermost.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran-based dissidents, many who have been imprisoned by the regime, urge Biden to keep sanctions on Islamic Republic

Congo: Muslims raid village, use machetes to murder 10 people

Nigeria: Jihad attacks in four local government areas force 2,000 people to flee their homes

Mozambique: Muslims murder 2,500 people, displace over 530,000 in jihad since 2017 to establish an Islamic state

Biden’s handlers revoke ‘terrorist’ label Trump applied to Iran’s Yemeni client group, the Houthis

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

Biden’s intersectional policies are incoherent

In the victim stakes the person with the thickest overlap of intersectional disadvantage wins.


Under the Biden Administration, we are going to be hearing a lot about “intersectionality” as an ineluctable dimension of social justice and the American Dream.

Intersectionality is a refinement of identity politics. It is not as complex as it might sound. For instance, being black or female or gay in America is regarded as a distinct identity that implies disadvantage or at least challenges on the path to equality. If someone ticks two or more of those boxes they have an intersectional identity. This means that their challenges and disadvantages are greatly compounded.

So, intersectionality identifies the overlapping prejudices that people face because of their ethnicity, race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. In the victim stakes the person with the thickest overlap wins. The more prejudice, the more moral prestige, the greater the claim to affirmative support.

This is going to be important over the next four years, so let’s see how it’s working out.

American Youth Poet Laureate, Amanda Gorman, who read her poem, The Hill we Climb, at the inauguration of President Biden is a good example of the moral prestige of intersectionality. Amanda spoke of herself as “the skinny black girl, descended from slaves, raised by a single mother” who is now free to dream of becoming President. In those few well-chosen words, she bedded herself securely within the pie chart of intersectional disadvantage.

But the truth is rather more complex.

Amanda along with her twin sister was indeed raised by a single mother, Joan Wicks, a middle school teacher of English. However, Amanda’s back story suggests privilege too.. She attended a private school in Santa Monica called New Roads. The fees there are in the region of US$40,000 a year. New Roads is very politically correct. Its mission statement proclaims that “solidarity and allyship are in our DNA”.

Amanda went from New Roads to another bastion of American privilege, Harvard University, from which she graduated with a BA last year.

You would think that a thick layer of education privilege would thin out the layers of prejudice below it. Not so. New Roads and Harvard add to Ms Gorman’s social privilege but she retains the moral privilege of being intersectional. It’s a bit odd.

Kamala Harris is another black woman with a complex background.

She is a child of immigrants. But her parents came to America as promising students who rose rapidly through the ranks of academia to the position of tenured Stanford professor, in her father’s case, and lead researcher in the field of breast cancer, in her mother’s. America allowed them to prosper.

One can talk about glass ceilings but could Kamala Harris really have faced greater challenges than say, the son of a travelling salesman whose father died in a car accident three months before his birth and whose mother later re-married a man he described as an “abusive gambler and alcoholic”? That of course was Bill Clinton, a straightforward, clever, heterosexual, white, male. Despite these disadvantages, he could never be an intersectional victim. Why? Because the colour of his skin is the silver spoon he was born with, whether he recognises it or not. It is perceived to overcome or dwarf somehow all the other challenges of his early life.

The intersectionality virus sends politicians desperately digging in their identity for a category which makes them a victim.

President Joe Biden, as another example, can lighten the load of his straight, white male baggage by talking up his Irish ancestry. While his maternal grandfather is Irish, his paternal grandfather’s lineage, along with his surname, traces to Sussex in deepest England. His maternal grandmother is mostly French and he carries her surname as his middle name. Identifying with an oppressed race, however, is a good image and if the oppressed race concerned is Irish, well, sure that never did any American politician any harm.

Biden was not long in the Oval Office before he had mapped out the full extent of his commitment to identity politics and intersectionality in all its divisiveness. There is no area of his policy platform that it does not touch.

He even announced that help packages for businesses struggling as a result of the pandemic would be based on sex and ethnicity. Friendly media have since tried to rescue him from the fallout of his controversial remarks with helpful fact checks. But as President-elect he announced on January 10: “our priority will be Black, Asian, Latino and Native American owned businesses and women owned businesses”.

Statements like this sum up the flawed thinking underlying intersectionality and identity politics. Disadvantage is not seen as an individual condition. It is a matter of the colour of your skin, gender or sexual orientation. But there cannot be a surer way to “other” minorities than to stamp them with victimhood — even when members of the black community reject it as leading black commentators like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and Candace Owens do. These voices within the minority don’t count because they undermine the noblesse oblige of the elite who have placed themselves at the tip of a power pyramid with an ever-widening base of minority groups. Their position there depends on identifying such groups, stoking their grievances and shaming and silencing their named oppressors.

Because their political raison d’etre depends on attacking the dominant culture as the oppressor, intersectional victims can never be the unifying force that Biden pledged his government would be in his inaugural address. The composition of his cabinet crosses a wide spectrum of race, religion and gender identity, to be sure, but there is not, for example, a single evangelical Christian in the mix. This is not necessarily his fault of course. He would be hard pressed to find one willing to serve — but it does show the limits and limitations of inclusion.

The current US Supreme Court is ethnically diverse, too, but it leans decisively towards Christian conservatism, counting its sole black member, Clarence Thomas, among the conservatives — just another instance of how intersectionality works in real life.

This is not Biden’s idea of diversity because his does not extend to opinions and ideas.

Biden was right when he said in his inaugural address, quoting the words of St Augustine –who, incidentally, had little faith in the ability of politics alone to create a just society — that a multitude becomes a people when their identity is “defined by the common objects of their love”.

In his list of those objects, Biden gave special emphasis to truth.

But truth cannot be reduced to a slogan or appropriated by one or other political platform. Many of those who voted against Biden did so because for them it is untruthful to describe abortion as “healthcare for women — which is exactly what Biden did in the first few days in power when he set about reversing the restrictions Trump had placed around abortion during his presidency.

They would also hold it is untruthful to describe protests that cost US$1.4 billion of damage to property and the loss of 28 lives as “peaceful”. Or untruthful to say he supports women’s rights when he backs laws that allow biological men to compete against them in sport, to share their private spaces and potentially their prisons and refuge centres. Untruthful, too, to say that he defends minority rights when he continues to trade with repressive regimes around the world and to turn a blind eye to the oppression of the very minorities he has places at the centre of your domestic politics.

The Biden era, like the Obama era and the might-have-been Hillary Clinton era, is doubling down on identity politics. This is deeply divisive and creates pushback that will drive voters into the arms of populists and nationalists.

Biden still has time to change course but, with the agressively identitarian Kamala Harris at his elbow and rights bodies huddling parasitically around the seat of power, that won’t be easy.

COLUMN BY

Margaret Hickey writes on faith and social issues and has been published in The Irish Examiner, Human Life Review(US), Position Papers, The Furrow, The Iona Blog and The Irish Times. 

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

THE PROBLEM WITH MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Is The Stream Being Poisoned?

I understand the concern of many in traditional newspaper journalism about the unfair advantage that social media has when earning advertising revenue from free content generated by traditional media which has to pay its journalists. However, the mainstream media needs to look in the mirror to see if perhaps its bias and political and cultural positions are driving away readers, who move to social media precisely because the mainstream media content has become so one-sided. A good example is a recent story by The Canadian Press carried by many Canadian newspapers. Entitled “Domestic terrorism a growing U.S. threat”.

The article is accompanied by a photo showing Trump supporters waiving American flags and suggests that “a dangerous and escalating threat of homegrown violent extremism (is) following last month’s riots on Capitol Hill.”

A counter-terrorism expert is quoted as saying that prior to the January 6th riots, terrorism was largely an international threat and afterword it became a domestic one. Elizabeth Neumann says she believes “that we will be fighting domestic terrorism that has its roots and inspiration points from January 6 for the next 10 to 20 years.” However, it is quite preposterous to argue that a riot by about one hundred people of so far unknown affiliation dwarfs the largely peaceful rally by hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens, expressing their concerns about the fairness of election proceedings. We need to discuss what is “domestic terrorism” and what is the danger in including in the concept only right wing riots, when all summer long, Americans were subject to horrific Black Lives Matter and Antifa destruction of the downtowns of large American cities, destroying small businesses. In Seattle the BLM and Antifa terrorists even set up what they called a sovereign territory. Such terrorism, including an attack and burning of a police station was largely tolerated by authorities, who were too fearful to adequately police these vast riots. The article referred to above does not even mention these summer riots when it comes to discussing domestic terrorism Why is that? And is there something wrong with the reporting of mainstream media?

In large part this is because media has a bias in favour of left wing terrorists and is all too willing to exaggerate the threats from right-wing terrorists. Compare the numbers, the violent tactics, and the influence of the BLM and Antifa rioters with any right-wing organization. I would suggest that there is no moral or political equivalency between Qanon and the Proud Boys on one side and BLM and Antifa on the other. Kamala Harris cheered on BLM as did other Democrats. The Democrats feature 4 younger politicians who call themselves the “Squad”. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have made anti-Semitic anti-Israel statements and Ayanna Pressley has backed violent protests. Omar, quite soon after her election as a congresswoman, refused to retract anti-Semitic comments and Nancy Pelosi, Majority House Leader, despite pressure to discipline her, refused to take any action and Omar continues on the Foreign Affairs Committee. There are other Democrats who also can be categorized as far Left-wing, such as Bernie Sanders and Raphael Warnock, but the mainstream media obsess unduly on the marginalized right-wing groups, even though they are tiny.

Such right-wing groups of course owe whatever allegiance they have to media and Democratic party political attacks on moderate Conservatives, calling them “deplorables” who cling to their Bibles and guns. That is because such allegations seek to disenfranchise the moderate heartland. The result is that many are driven to extremist language as a consequence.

So, while many Democrats support far left personalities, few if any Republicans endorse far-right activists. The only exception might be Marjory Taylor Green, who was by bi-partisan efforts removed from her committee duties due to unacceptable comments made prior to running from office. Yet the Democrats refused to disassociate themselves in any way from the said Ms. Omar.

Conservatives who read mainstream media are faced with articles that are less news than opinion. Conservative readers were aware that election laws were changed to benefit the Democrats by allowing mail-in voting and during the election day itself Republican monitors were prevented from getting close to the ballots they were supposed to observe. Republicans, were not happy when news stories assumed, without due factual proof, that Republican complaints were “unsubstantiated.” And then, with the exception of the New York Post and Fox News, all mainstream media refused to cover the Joe and Hunter Biden story, despite documentary evidence of their conflict of interest between their business interests in China and Ukraine and Joe’s duty as Vice-President and now President. The media kept quiet about documentary and video evidence provided by former business partner Tony Bobolinsky, a most reputable gentleman.

The mainstream media became fond of calling President Trump and some of his right-wing supporters “authoritarian” However, under the guise of fighting the Coronavirus, it is the mainstream that supports lockdown, quarantines and potentially the need to show official documents before traveling from one state or province to another, where lockdowns and quarantines will take us somewhere truly authoritarian. More right-wingers are libertarian and prefer limited government powers, but we should note that the mainstream media is on the side of big and powerful Government with power to restrict free speech, and grant entry to undocumented aliens with criminal pasts.

Conservatives feel the game is stacked against them when big tech Oligarchs like the owners of Facebook, Twitter, and Google censor their comments. Abusing their privilege as a supposed non-journalistic “platform” to control the public’s ability to get unbiased information, is another way that the collusion between big tech and media and big corporations leaves conservatives feeling shunned and censored, driving them ever farther rightward – when such matters as the unsuccessful Russian collusion Special Investigation, the hopeless impeachment proceeding and the apparent criminality of false FISA applications, obstruction of justice in the destruction of cellphones and computers, showed it is the Democrats who are threats to the Rule of Law, and not so much President Trump. Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Gerry Nadler can be seen to have been too successful in their manipulations, for their own good.

Just this week, Fox fired longtime conservative television host Lou Dobbs and this further moves Fox away from alternative conservative media and towards “mainstream media.”

The mainstream stream has dried up, another result of cultural relativism, political correctness and cancel culture; “mainstream” is defined as “the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.” I do not regard this relativism, cancel culture, anti-Israel antisemitism and hatred of anything conservative to be “normal.” It is abnormal. Accordingly, the mainstream is dead, so those who try to ride the “dominant” views and have shunned me or my authors at Mantua Books can have their mainstream. Nearly half of all Americans voted for President Trump who is hated by most of the mainstream media. Such voters know that the mainstream media represents mainly the views of the Swamp, the Deep State, anti-liberal academics and bureaucrats and socialist NGOs.

Cambridge Dictionary defines “mainstream media” as those “forms of the media especially traditional forms such as newspapers, television and radio, rather than the internet, that influence large numbers of people and are likely to represent generally accepted beliefs and opinion.

If the mainstream media is supposed to represent “generally accepted beliefs”, today’s mainstream is deficient for rejecting such traditional beliefs as:

  • freedom of expression
  • the constitutional right to bear arms
  • not taking the life of a baby during pregnancy when such is a viable life.
  • limited government
  • support for the right of Israeli Jews not to be murdered by terroristic neighbours whose education system brainwashes children to murder
  • Iran is a terrorist supporting regime that admits it wants to use a nuclear bomb on Israel and foments war in Syria, Iraq and Yemen
  • China is not a friendly country and so breaches fundamental human rights that trading with China should be understood as supporting an evil regime.
  • self-sufficiency in energy is important for the U.S. and alternate producers of energy create as much if not more pollution than oil pipelines.
  • critical race theory is counter-productive to Blacks and is itself racist
  • biological men should not compete in women’s sports
  • all cultures are not equal, as cultures based on freedom and liberty are superior to cultures of hate, misogyny and abuse, which are inferior
  • Judeo-Christian ethics

And so, as mainstream media pleads its case for special compensation from internet platforms taking its content, we should use the opportunity to confront mainstream media. We should demand that mainstream media stick to its mission of fair journalism, emphasizing “normal” and “conventional” ideas, and “generally accepted beliefs and opinion”. If the mainstream is a poisoned stream, it will be detrimental to our liberal democracy.

©Howard Rothberg. All rights reserved.