VIDEO: Legal Immigrants Warn About America’s Future

This video is from Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. (PLIUSA), which is a grassroots organization composed of legal immigrants who cherish American Values and America’s founding principles. As first generation immigrants, they personally lived through nations ruled by socialist, authoritarian, or anarchistic regimes. They have been there and do not want to go back there!

WATCH:

ABOUT PATRIOTIC LEGAL IMMIGRANTS USA, INC.

Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. (PLIUSA) is a grassroots 527 organization founded by Mr. Yukong Zhao, Mr. Agustin Blazquez, Mr. Jose Castillo, Ms. Sendra Dorce, Dr. Ajay Kathori, Mr. James Sutton, Ms. Stacy Yuan and other leaders in the legal immigrant community nationwide.

©Patriotic Legal Immigrants USA, Inc. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

MUST WATCH VIDEO: Systemic Racism, Trump and BLM

This is one of the most important videos I have ever viewed. Because I respect your opinion I am forwarding it to you. I am sure you will find it worthwhile.


In this Direct episode, John Anderson is joined by Professor Glenn Loury, the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. They discuss the current political, social and economic issues facing the US, and the Western world more broadly, including the Black Lives Matter movement, the popular idea of ‘systemic racism’, the upcoming 2020 U.S. election and more.

WATCH:

ABOUT PROFESSOR GLENN LOURY

Professor Glenn Loury has enjoyed an extraordinary career. At age 33, he became the first black tenured professor of economics in the history of Harvard University. He has made scholarly contributions to the fields of welfare economics, game theory, industrial organization, natural resource economics and the economics of income distribution. Loury is also a prominent social critic and public intellectual, publishing essays on racial inequality and social policy in dozens of influential journals of public affairs. Over his career, Loury has held academic positions at Oxford University, Tel Aviv University, the University of Stockholm, the Delhi School of Economics, the Institute for the Human Sciences in Vienna, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.

©All rights reserved.

Corporation from an Islamic State where Wife-Beating is Legal Opens a Feminist Hotel in D.C.

Look at the tampon portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ignore the wife-beating.


What was Washington D.C. missing?

A feminist hotel whose lobby has a giant portrait of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg made out of “repurposed tampons”. Of all the ways the deceased justice would want to be remembered, a giant tampon portrait likely ranks below being the new Land O’Lakes or Aunt Jemima mascot.

But Hotel Zena’s incredible commitment to female empowerment also includes a reception desk full of jumbled high heels, giant portraits of female warriors, thousands of feminist protest buttons, and a Wall of Honor that includes Oprah and Hillary Clinton, for a “fierce” atmosphere.

Because who doesn’t come on a business trip to D.C. and then wants to stay overnight in a “fierce” atmosphere while being glared at by a mural of a dour Greek goddess in every room?

The only thing funnier than a “fierce”, but “inviting” feminist hotel is who’s behind it.

Viceroy Hotels & Resorts announced that “Hotel Zena was created primarily by women, for people, both women and men. It is a hotel that offers a haven for all genders, races, and sexualities.”

That might nor be quite the attitude of Viceroy’s Maldives hotel in a country where Islamic sharia law orders women who have been raped to be lashed. The Islamic regime made headlines around the world when it ordered a 15-year-old girl to be lashed for having premarital sex.

But then again, 50% of Viceroy is owned by the Mubadala Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund in Abu Dhabi. Its CEO is the grandson of the former top Sharia judge there.

Some 50% of Viceroy was owned by Jho Low, the businessman at the center of Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal that dragged in sections of its government and assorted Muslim royals. The Justice Department seized some of Low’s assets and the Abu Dhabi wealth fund was negotiating to buy that 50%, but it’s unclear who now owns the other half of Viceroy.

Viceroy’s true hometown in Abu Dhabi is about as feminist as a tampon portrait of RBG.

Women have “male guardians” who run their lives and decide whether they can travel and the Sharia Court of Appeals found that men have the right to beat their wives. Female genital mutilation is commonplace, and rape is only a crime for girls under fourteen years old.

Hugging a man without the benefit of marriage however is a crime.

Foreign tourists who reported being raped were sentenced to prison because they had confessed to extramarital sex. In other words, it’s the usual sort of Sharia setup.

And don’t ask about “sexualities.”

“Unnatural sex with another person” gets you 14 years prison. That’s progressive in a region where Iran hangs gay people. And it’s not the only one dispensing death penalties freely.

All of this is a little awkward for a feminist hotel that boasts of its “provocative art” produced by “feminists of both genders” who are “working globally for the cause of human rights.”

A giant tampon portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a very convenient distraction even if it’s not too clear how all those “repurposed tampons” are advancing human rights around the world.

The business model is a familiar one. Take an underwhelming hotel, and renovate it into a “luxury urban lifestyle hotel” by throwing lots of bad art, and virtue signaling at every inch of it. But the investors are often foreign, looking for someplace with potential to put their money.

Last year’s reviews for The Donovan mentioned smells, leaks, and dirty toilets. The hotel had been renamed several times and showed up in the D.C. Madam’s phone records (probably not one of the accomplishments of female empowerment that the current management would like to celebrate, but you never know) and then a $25 million renovation gave it a feminist makeover.

Now if there are any leaks, visitors will be too distracted by all the feminist virtue signaling.

Washington D.C. is leading the nation in the trend of woke hotels with extremely un-woke owners. The Eaton Workshop had been previously announced as a woke hotel with crystal healing, politically correct lectures, and bibles replaced with UN pamphlets. But its ownership was linked to a Hong Kong family entangled with Chinese state-owned enterprises.

Like the NBA, Disney, and the rest of the huge corporate titans, woke is reserved for America.

Opening a hotel in D.C. that blathers about oppression or feminism is fine. It’s just marketing to the ruling class of a government town that sees oppressors everywhere except in the mirror. But don’t expect any lectures about human rights in a Hong Kong hotel or feminist tampon portraits in the hotels of Maldives or Abu Dhabi. That’s the difference between virtue and virtue signaling.

So many corporations have been happy to shout, “Black Lives Matter”, lecture on “toxic masculinity”, ban gun owners, and pro-life activists because that’s the official dogma. Every dot com from Amazon to Spotify will rename Columbus Day, Indigenous Peoples Day, because that’s what the ruling class here wants, the way the PRC’s ruling class wants Mao portraits.

There’s no contradiction between Sharia law in Abu Dhabi and tampon portraits in D.C., or Communist propaganda in Shanghai and Black Lives Matter t-shirts in San Francisco.

It’s not about rights, principles, or commitments: it’s about power.

That’s why shoving the Uighurs in the NBA’s face is a great own on Twitter, but not much else. The NBA doesn’t care about rights. No more than Disney or any corporation shooting off emails about its commitment to racial equality and the millions it’s sending to Black Lives Matter does.

When most Americans were patriotic, corporations also wanted to be seen as patriotic. But these days most Americans matter about as much as most Chinese or most Venezuelans.

The ruling class has a new set of mores and virtues to distinguish it from the folks, as Obama once put it at a San Francisco fundraiser with George Soros in attendance, bitterly cling to their guns and religion, instead of bitterly clinging to their Black Lives Matter signs and RBG portraits.

The luxury hotels of D.C. cater to the new ruling class and its mores and fetishes.

The Zena Hotel, like the Eaton Workshop or any of the new urban luxury leftist hotels, doesn’t represent rights, but the power of the ruling class to repress the rest of the country. The more obnoxious, crude, hypocritical, and abusive its propaganda, the greater its show of strength.

The propaganda can be about female empowerment, the glories of Maoism or Sharia law, but their real message is in the universal language of the power and preening of the ruling class.

In D.C., Democrat women can be groped by Biden before checking into a feminist hotel where tampon portraits and murals of female goddesses and warriors make them feel empowered. It’s no different than the Muslim women who claim that Sharia law empowers them. Empowerment is different from freedom. Rights provide real freedom while empowerment offers a heady rush.

One is a legal reality and the other is an emotional feeling.

A brief history of the tyranny of the Left is that it substitutes emotions for rights. Its empowerment doesn’t promise freedom or rights, only the thrill of power over others.

“Every architectural line, material and art peinstallation was thoughtfully designed and curated to send a message of female empowerment,” a story about the Zena Hotel claims.

It’s not about the empowerment of women. The Zena Hotel is still a product of two massive companies with male CEOs, not to mention Islamic emirates with male rulers, and even the hotel’s chef is a man. But it is about the empowerment of some women of the ruling class, not to rule over their male bosses, but the rest of the country which lacks their wealth and power.

A ruling class doesn’t seek to empower women or anyone else, but to hold and wield power. Zena’s portraits of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of Hillary Clinton and Oprah are not about rights: they’re a celebration of the power of a ruling class while pretending that power is feminism.

And if you get too worried about the wife-beating in Abu Dhabi, here’s a tampon mural of RBG.

COLUMN BY

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona: Hijab-wearing Muslim trans Antifa militant arrested at Phoenix riot, claims to be victim of ‘Islamophobia’

Turkey, Azerbaijan commit more crimes against Armenians

Al-Azhar grand imam says man who beheaded teacher doesn’t speak for Islam, but warns against ‘insulting religions’

Iran’s Khamenei: ‘Muslim nations will never accept the humiliation of compromising with the Zionist regime’

Iran: Woman bicycles without hijab, governor says she ‘insulted the Islamic veil,’ her motive is being investigated

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

VIDEO: Why this Jew is Voting for Donald J. Trump

How can so many American Jews vote AGAINST the most pro-Israel POTUS in American history? How can they vote for a party whose platform violates so many tenets of their religion?

It’s time to #JEXIT #Trump2020 #JewsForTrump #IsraelisforTrump

©The United West. All rights reserved.

Dark Winter? What Could Biden have Meant?

Do not miss Leo Hohmann’s latest post:

Bracing for a ‘DARK WINTER’

  • Are globalists using Covid as cover for their real post-election plans?
  • Should we expect the left to unleash a bloody cleansing of its political opponents?

Here are the opening paragraphs, but you must read it all.

After his stumbling performance in Thursday night’s debate, and the way in which his campaign seems to be hiding him from public view, it’s hard to imagine how Joe Biden wins the presidency on Nov. 3.

If Biden was seriously trying to win, he would be out on the campaign trail like President Trump, not in his basement.

The way Biden is acting, it’s almost as if he’s been told not to worry, the outcome is not going to be decided by vote tallies.

With that in mind, let’s think outside the box and examine some possibilities that may sound insane, until we detach ourselves from our normalcy bias.***

From this vantage point, all roads lead to the same dark place — a second coronavirus lockdown, indeed a harder lockdown than the first one.

And it could be accompanied this time by a coup d’ etat to remove Trump from office. Look for the establishment [deep state supported by deep media] to conjure up some false pretense to justify his removal despite the fact that he will win re-election on Nov. 3, fair and square.

All the signals are pointing to this. And the latest came from Biden himself.

During the debate, Biden held up his black mask, looked straight into the camera and said “We’re about to go into a dark winter.”

***As I explained in a post a couple of months ago  ‘normalcy bias’ has resulted in the deaths of millions throughout history. There is no downside to considering all of the possibilities for the coming weeks, months, and God forbid years, just don’t stress.  We are in God’s hands.

Now keep reading Hohmann’s dire warning!


Dark Winter

On June 22-23, 2001, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention Terrorism, hosted a senior-level war game examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland. (See also: Dark Winter ScriptArticle: Shining Light on Dark Winter)


EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fr. Michael O’Connor Preaches Truth to Joe Biden

Joe Biden is a “…an embarrassment to Catholicism…”

WATCH:

RELATED VIDEO: Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 

 

Please share these videos with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Voting? A Simple Video Guide to Each Party’s Platform

Check out this simple video that details key sections of the platforms of both parties. Be sure to share it with your friends, family, and fellow parishioners. 

Please share this video with your friends, family and fellow Christians.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

Pope Francis Oversteps the Papal Office

Fr. Gerald Murray on the pope’s endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples. Pope Francis must repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.


The endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples by Pope Francis in the film Francesco, directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, is a true scandal in both the technical and popular meaning of that term. He has repudiated the teaching of St. John Paul II that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions” and that the “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”

In addition to endorsing civil unions, Pope Francis says that homosexuals “have a right to a family.” What are we to make of this? There is evidence that Afineevsky has egregiously taken this statement from a videotaped 2019 interview of Pope Francis by the Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki out of context.

Pope Francis was in fact speaking about the right of homosexuals not to be rejected by their own families, not about homosexuals creating new families of their own, presumably by adoption or through surrogate motherhood.

The problem, though, remains that the Vatican has publicly embraced this film. And the pope’s out-of-context “right to a family” comments have been widely interpreted in the media in the way surely intended by Afineevsky but not by Pope Francis. The Vatican has the duty to issue a correction stating clearly that Pope Francis was not giving an endorsement of a right to the adoption of children by homosexual couples. The Church has always taught that there is no right for two men or two women living together in an immoral sexual relationship to adopt children.

As he has at several critical points in the past, however, Pope Francis has overstepped the limits of his office. The pope is a witness to the Faith, not an all-powerful authority who can change Catholic doctrine according to his own mistaken way of thinking. Catholic doctrine teaches that homosexual persons should refrain from same-sex activity and not enter into sinful relationships that lead to mortal sin.

Pope Francis’ remarks will give encouragement to all those, Catholic and not, who reject the Church’s teaching that sodomy is an inherently evil act. They will claim that the Church now accepts homosexual activity as something good when it offers a real good: life within a family, of a sort.

And in the context the pope has placed it, same-sex “families” deserve not only legal protection via civil unions but also societal approval in order to make same-sex couples feel as welcome and accepted as anyone else in society.

I expect that various cardinals and bishops will make public statements for and against this new teaching. Cardinal Burke has already issued a powerful reply that may be read by clicking here.  Divisions, already in existence over other hotly-contested questions, will grow wider.

No “bridge-building” will result from this latest misstep. Those who accept the Church’s perennial teaching on homosexuality will be accused of being anti-Catholic enemies of the pope. But can that be true?

To remind the pope of what the Church has always taught makes those who do so not his opponents, but rather his true friends who have the courage to rebuke a pope who has attempted to do what lies beyond his powers, that is, change Catholic moral doctrine.

The Catholic Church throughout the world has strongly opposed proposals to pass civil-union laws, having been instructed to do so by the Holy See in 2003. That all changed on October 21, 2020. Encouraging governments to legally formalize unnatural, sinful relationships in which people engage in sodomy is a shameful thing for any Christian to do, but most especially so for the pope.

Pope Francis’ comments are a flagrant betrayal of the mission of the successor of St. Peter “to confirm the brethren” in sound doctrine.

This is a volcanic eruption. Catholicism is now widely but incorrectly seen to consist of the latest remarks by Pope Francis to journalists and filmmakers. Pope Francis has used the power and influence of his sacred office to promote something that is sinful. That is not the mission entrusted by Christ to St. Peter and his successors. Catholic doctrine on the immorality of homosexual acts cannot be changed by Pope Francis or any other pope.

We must pray that he comes to realize the grave offense he has given to God by this wrongful endorsement of homosexual pseudo-marriage. He is encouraging what he is bound by his office to condemn. His acceptance of his election as pope by the College of Cardinals included a solemn commitment to uphold the Faith handed down from the Apostles.

He has no right to promote the erroneous teaching that homosexual people have a right to live together in sin or have a just claim upon civil society, acting through its governments, to publicly recognize such unions as legal institutions that are equivalent in some way to sacramental marriage.

The faithful must call upon Pope Francis to repent of this disastrous declaration, which inflicts grave harm upon the Church.

COLUMN BY

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 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.

FLORIDA: Trump 49%, Biden 46% – Rasmussen

It appears that Florida will once again go into the Trump win column. This key battleground state has been visited by President Trump, Vice President Pence and the Trump family. President Trump is scheduled to hold rallies in Pensacola, FL and in The Villages on October 23rd. Stay tuned for videos of these rallies.

Rasmussen Reports:

President Trump holds a three-point lead over Democrat Joe Biden in Florida, a state that’s critical to whether or not the president is reelected.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey of Likely Voters in Florida finds Trump beating Biden 49% to 46%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Factor in those who haven’t made up their minds yet but are leaning toward one candidate or the other, and Trump gains another point, besting Biden 50% to 46%.

In 2016, Trump earned 49% of the vote in Florida, edging Democrat Hillary Clinton by 1.2 points to carry the state.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of voters in the Sunshine State have already made up their minds whom they’re going to vote for. Trump leads 50% to 48% among this group.

Among the 45% who say they have already voted, however, Biden has a 17-point lead – 56% to 39%.

Ninety-three percent (93%) say they are definitely going to vote, and Trump has a five-point advantage – 50% to 45% – among these voters.

READ MORE.

RELATED TWEET:

©All rights reserved.

Four Newborns Die After Being Denied Heart Surgery because of COVID Travel Restrictions

Tragically, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a virtual laboratory for lessons in “unseen” evils that have resulted from pursuing “a present good.”


Four babies died in Adelaide, Australia over the last four weeks after being denied transport to Melbourne because of government COVID-19 restrictions, health officials say.

Adelaide, the capital city of the state of South Australia, doesn’t offer paediatric cardiac surgery. According to local news reports, this means about 100 babies are sent interstate for treatment annually, typically to Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital.

Because of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, however, Melbourne no longer remains an option. Patients must be sent to Sydney instead.

The distance from Adelaide to Melbourne is about 725 kilometers, a flight of roughly 75 minutes, while the distance to Sydney is about 1,375 kilometers, a flight of nearly two hours. An extra 45 minutes might not sound like a lot of time, but when you’re talking about surgery on a vital organ in a sick infant, minutes matter.

The infants never left Adelaide, news reports indicate, presumably because doctors either determined they would not survive the lengthy trip or because Sydney’s Children’s Hospital at Westmead—the lone hospital available due to travel restrictions—lacked the capacity to treat them.

Whatever the case, because of the travel restrictions and the lack of a cardiac center in Adelaide, the infants failed to receive treatment that could have saved their lives.

Dr. John Svigos, an obstetrician and gynecologist, told Australian TV network 9 News that the four babies who died in Adelaide “almost certainly” would have benefited from on-site surgery. He noted that recent state restrictions on travel inhibited the hospital’s ability to get the infants treated at other facilities.

“Particularly in our current COVID situation where the usual process of referral to the Melbourne cardiac unit is no longer tenable and referral to Sydney is on a case-by-case basis,” said Svigos, who has operated a private practice at Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide since 1978. “I shall leave it to you to imagine the profound effect of these deaths on the parents, their families and the dedicated medical and nursing staff dealing with these tragedies.”

The story is tragic. It’s also frustrating, in part because we know there are countless scenarios like this happening every day around the world. It’s undeniable at this point: COVID-19 regulations designed to save people are costing lives.

The tragedy is compounded by the fact that it was so predictable. Any student of economics who has read the opening line of Bastiat’s great essay “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen” could have predicted such outcomes.

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects,” wrote Bastiat.

The economist explained that every action comes not with a single consequence, but many consequences. Humans tend to focus on the immediate effects of an action (the seen) while ignoring the numerous other effects that go unseen. Bastiat warned that the economist must beware pursuing “a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come.”

In other words, we must look beyond the immediate effects of an action and consider the far-reaching unintended consequences.

Tragically, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a virtual laboratory for lessons in “unseen” evils that have resulted from pursuing “a present good.” By imposing mass lockdowns and sweeping bans on travel and other basic freedoms, governments may have increased social distancing, but they did so at costs we may never fully understand (but are now just beginning to).

We see the immediate, desired effects—less travel, businesses closed or limited in capacity, more children working on laptops and not in school—but we tend to overlook the many unseen, second-order evils. These include the cancer screenings people are not getting, the 100,000 US businesses that will never reopen, the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings people cannot attend, the rise in depression as people lose jobs, the millions of people slipping into poverty and extreme poverty, the rise in suicide, and yes—infants and other people denied surgeries that could have saved them.

Each of these effects will in turn trigger countless other effects, many of which will never be seen or written about.

The effort to protect individuals from the coronavirus through government fiat instead of individual action was akin to performing heart surgery with a broadsword—clumsy, foolish, and deadly.

“How many more deaths of babies and young children will the community and staff be forced to endure?” asked Svigos.

It’s a question every person suffering under inhumane lockdowns and other draconian government restrictions should be asking.

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.

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

VIDEO: Special Advisor to President Trump on Covid Policy Speaks Out

Freddie Sayers caught up with Dr. Scott Atlas, a healthcare policy academic from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, who has become the latest lightning rod for the controversy around Covid-19 policy and his support for a more targeted response.

Speaking from inside the White House, where he is now Senior advisor to the President and a member of the Coronavirus task force, he does not hold back. He tells us that he is disgusted and dismayed at the media and public policy establishment, sad that it has come to this, cynical about their intentions, and angry that lockdown policies have been allowed to go on so long.

WATCH:

KEY QUOTES

Why him?

I’m a healthcare policy person — I have a background in medical science, but my role really is to translate medial science into public policy. That’s very different from being an epidemiologist or a virologist with a single, limited view on things.

Dr. Fauci

He’s just one person on the task force — there are several people on the task force. His background is virology, immunology and infectious disease. It’s a very different background, it’s a more limited approach, and I don’t speak for him.

Herd immunity policy?

No. It’s a repeated distortion, lie, or whatever you want to call it… What they mean by ‘herd immunity strategy’ is survival of the fittest, let the infection spread through the community and develop a population immunity. That’s never been the policy that I have advised. It’s never even been discussed inside the White House, not even for a single minute. And that’s never been the policy of the President of the United States or anybody else here. I’ve said that many many times… and yet it persists like so many other things, hence the term that the President is fond of using called fake news.

On herd immunity

Population immunity is a biological phenomenon that occurs. It’s sort of like if you’re building something in your basement: it’s down on the ground because gravity puts it there. It’s not a ‘strategy’ to say that herd immunity exists — it is obtained when a certain percentage of the population becomes resistant or immune to an infection, whether that is by getting infected or getting a vaccine or by a combination of both. In fact, if you don’t that believe herd immunity exists as a way to block the pathways to the vulnerable in an infection, then you would never advocate or believe in giving widespread vaccination — that’s the whole point of it… I’ve explained it to people who seemingly didn’t understand it; I’ve mentioned this radioactive word called herd immunity. But that’s not a strategy that anyone is pursuing.

What is his and President Trump’s policy?

My advice is exactly this. It’s a three-pronged strategy. Number one: aggressive protection of high risk individuals and the vulnerable (typically the elderly and those with co-morbidities). Number two: allocate resources so that we prevent hospital overcrowding, so that people can be treated for this virus and get the other serious medical care that is needed. Number three: open schools, society and businesses because keeping them closed is enormously harmful — in fact it kills people.

Effect of lockdowns

We must open up because we’re killing people. In the US, 46% of the six most common cancers were not diagnosed during the shutdown… These are people who will present to the hospital or their doctor with later stage disease — many of these people will die. 650,000 Americans are on chemotherapy ­— half of them didn’t come in for their chemo because they were afraid. Two-thirds of screenings for cancer were not done; half of childhood immunisations did not get done; 85% of living organ transplants did not get done. And then we see the other harms: 200,000 cases plus of child abuse in the US during the two months of spring school closures were not reported because schools are the number one agency where abuse is noticed; we have one out of four American young adults, college age, who thought of killing themselves in the month of June…

All of these harms are massive for the working class and the lower socioeconomic groups. The people who are upper class, who can work from home, the people who can sip their latte and complain that their children are underfoot or that they have to come up with extra money to hire a tutor privately — these are people who are not impacted by the lockdowns.

©UnHerd. All rights reserved.

‘Donald Trump Watch’ Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

This is one of the most shocking things you might see in this never-ending year from hell.

A mysterious group has made available the names and addresses of hundreds of thousands of Trump donors.  There can only be one reason for this—it is a target list! And, they want you to be afraid!

From Gateway Pundit: (Hat tip: Florida friend)

Mysterious “Donald Trump Watch” Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

Far left operatives created the Donald Trump Watch website recently to reveal local Trump donors in your community.

Users are able to punch in the address of any location in the country and a map will show you the name and address of any Trump donor in the area.

The website is using FEC data to target Trump voters and donors.

According to the website they provide the names and addresses of “Americans who Give Money to Support a Racist.”

[….]

The only reason for calling Trump a racist and doxing his supporters on-line is to let BLM and ANTIFA know where we live.

More here.

I looked for my name and it wasn’t there, but realized that it must be because I gave through the RNC. I did find friends!  It is real!

And, if they are successful in frightening patriots this time, it will have a chilling effect on anyone considering donating to a future America First presidential candidate.

Will be watching for a Tucker Carlson report on this!

Endnote: Don’t miss my post yesterday! Stay safe!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Patriotism is dropping like a rock [on one side of the aisle]

Gallup found that less than a third of Democrats are proud of their country.


A special event occurred on April 10 at the Alhambra Dinner Theater in Jacksonville, Florida. Performed by African American orator and combat veteran Evangelo “Vann” Morris, the Old Glory Presentation is a time-honored tradition that symbolizes the love service members have for the nation they protect and defend. Imagine for a moment that Old Glory has a personality. Here is its message, here is its song:

Once revered by nearly all Americans, Old Glory is now scorned, burned and spit on by a disgruntled class of citizens known collectively as progressives, the majority of whom belong to the Democratic Party.

The number of Democrats who love their country has plummeted

According to a July 2018 Gallup survey, less than a third of Democrats are extremely proud of their country. Less than a third, and trending sharply downward. If a survey was taken today, the percentage of Democrats who love their country would likely be fast approaching single digits. Sad to say, and with little room for doubt, patriotism has come to reside almost exclusively in the Republican Party.

Democrats as a whole have clearly soured on the place Lincoln referred to as the last best hope of mankind, the only nation that ever went to war with itself to end the scourge of slavery. Through their party’s identity politics election strategy, Democrats seek to convince members of each “victim” group that their country is an incurably flawed society that has it in for them. In no group has that strategy worked to better effect than the African American community.

Despite all that’s been done to right the wrongs once committed against an oppressed minority of its own citizens, America is now being relentlessly vilified by Democrats as an evil, systemically racist society that must be overturned and replaced by a system that’s “fair to all.“

The choice you make on Nov. 3 will determine the kind of country your living legacies will inherit

So, what “fair to all” system do Democrats have in mind? The answer is found in another national poll. According to a 2019 survey by Public Opinion Strategies, an astounding 77% of today’s Democrats have fallen under the spell of socialism. In other words, a solid majority of Democrats believe America would be a better place if its two-party representative democracy is dismantled and replaced with single-party socialist/Marxist rule.

When undecided voters choose which presidential candidate to support on November 3, here’s something they might want to keep in mind. Throughout history, wherever socialism has taken hold it has never created a single free and prosperous society, but has destroyed many. The reason for its unbroken trail of destruction is easily understood.

Despite the lies that prop it up, socialism is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work hard, educate themselves, employ their ingenuity and risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don’t. That is an immutable human condition that will never change.

How you vote matters.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

Underneath the Polls, America Quietly Decides

If you don’t see a lot of bumper stickers for Donald Trump in your area, it’s not because he has less support, a new poll explains. At least 59 percent of the president’s supporters told the University of New Hampshire that they don’t advertise their choice for fear their cars would be vandalized. Only 16 percent of Biden fans said the same. Even fewer — 14 percent — worried about their houses with yard signs, while 52 percent of Trump supporters thought their property would be damaged if they tried. Is this part of the “silent majority” people are talking about? George Barna thinks so.

The intimidation factor is real, and it’s showing up in everything from the overblown “undecided” numbers to the lopsided leads for Joe Biden. “I say this as a guy who’s been doing polling for more than 40 years and has worked in various presidential campaigns,” Barna said on “Washington Watch,” and “I think that this time around, there’s a lot of funny business going on with the polling. I think that there’s probably somewhere between at least a four to eight percentage point ‘hidden Trump vote,’ if you will, for a variety of reasons…”

In that same Granite State survey, Trump supporters were also half as likely to talk to their friends and coworkers about who they were voting for than their Biden counterparts. And if they won’t tell a colleague, there’s no reason to believe they’d tell a pollster. Trafalger, the only firm who accurately predicted 2016, insists the same phenomenon is playing out four years later. Trump supporters, who’ve been targeted, harassed, publicly shamed, and marginalized don’t want to be judged. But it would be a mistake, Barna agrees, to mistake their silence for a lack of enthusiasm.

As a matter of fact, SAGE Cons (the Spiritually-Active, Governance-Engaged Conservatives) are about as involved as they can get. These are the people who understand that they have a biblical responsibility to bring their worldview to bear on every part of their life — including politics. They make up about 10 percent of the population, but they have an enormous impact on the outcome of the election. And that’s not going to change any time soon, based on what George is seeing. “We’re looking at above 90-percent turnout [for this group],” he says. Higher than it’s ever been. “In the last election,” he points out, SAGE Cons were troubled by both candidates. Didn’t trust either one of them really but knew that they had to make a choice. So they turned out and they made the best choice they could based on what they knew about them this election…”

Now, four years into the most pro-life, pro-family administration we’ve ever seen, they’re much more comfortable with Donald Trump. I saw that enthusiasm firsthand this morning, when I went to early vote. In a predominately conservative area, I talked to a lot of the folks in line as I waited an hour to cast my ballot. Our movement is motivated, and if we could find a way to multiply that impact with the almost SAGE Cons (adults who meet about three-quarters of Barna’s qualifications), “we’re talking about almost 20 percent of the population” voting on biblical values.

Look at it this way, George says. Consider how much “energy and effort and resources is devoted by campaigns and parties [to populations] like the gay constituency, [which is] three, maybe four, percent of the population — [or the] African-American constituency, 12 percent of the population. This is a group that’s bigger those…” And, more importantly, it’s one of the most reliable voting blocs there is. Why? Because they’re not driven by their emotions or the political winds. They’re driven by fixed biblical principles based on truth. So their outlook doesn’t change — and their voting behavior rarely does either.

When they step into the ballot booth, they care about these three things most of all: abortion, religious freedom, and federal court appointments and nominations. President Trump, as we know from his long list of accomplishments, checks all of those boxes. So if there’s one way you and I can bring along the almost SAGE Cons, it’s by reminding them what this administration has done.

“There are probably one out of every seven or eight voters in this country who don’t know as much about [President Trump’s record]. So while they may like many things about him, while they share that conservative perspective about what ought to be done with the government, they’re not nearly as well-informed… And that seems to be what’s holding them back from being more excited about voting in this election and voting for Mr. Trump.”

Of course, the media hasn’t done America any favors — going out of its way to ignore the promises Trump keeps. Most voters haven’t turned on the television in the last four years and heard about the groundbreaking ways this president has protected the unborn or gone to bat on religious freedom. That’s why it’s so critically important that we share this information with our friends, our family, and anyone else who may not be where we are in terms of engagement. And PrayVoteStand.org has a pile of resources to help you do that! We have the Trump Accomplishments, broken down by lifefamily and religious liberty, and international religious liberty. Our teams have even translated those resources into Spanish, so that we can reach even more people.

At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words — even Tweets. And in an election as important as this one, that — not personality — is what matters.


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Dems Absent As Barrett Proceeds to Floor

A Win for Churches in Colorado

The Transgender Craze: ‘The Permanent Medicalization of a Whole Generation of Children’

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

Cultural Marxism 101

Why are the Left and Right fighting over this term?


A lot of terms are thrown around today to describe extremist movements. One that keeps coming up is “cultural Marxism.” In an attempt to add clarity, political and historical accuracy, Clarion Project investigates the origin and current usage of the term and offers our suggestions going forward.

1. The modern term “cultural Marxism” morphed from its original expression, which was “cultural Bolshevism.” This latter term originated in Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s as a way to denounce the modernist movement in the arts and culture and was later used by the Nazis to claim that the Bolsheviks, the Marxist revolutionary movement in Russia, wanted to subvert the Germany values of family and national identity as well as its traditions in music, art and intellectual ideas.

However, the term “cultural Bolshevism” in Germany was also fundamentally used as an antisemitic canard based on the conspiracy theory that the Jews were behind the 1917 communist revolution in Russia. This canard was aided by the 1920s’ global circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a made-up document published in Russia in 1903 that purported to describe a secret Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination. (To this day, Far-Right circles continue to believe that communism is a Jewish conspiracy.) In reality, by December 1917, only five of the 21 members of the Communist Central Committee were Jews.

2. Even though the term originated as an antisemitic Nazi trope, most people using it today are unaware of its origins or implied meaning. They certainly are not using it as an antisemitic slur. For example, celebrated thought-leader Jordan Peterson uses the term “cultural Marxism” in a context completely different from its origins. Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News platform, also popularized the term despite being Jewish himself.

A more accurate representation of the use of this term by the above figures and similar conservative thinkers would probably be “neo-Marxism,” as this expression more accurately describes the aspirations of the specific demographic that favors the uprooting of our existing systems.

In its most extreme, the program advocated by this demographic is based on Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto, which outlines the core goal of communism: the abolishment of private property as a means to bring about a classless society (in our day and age, this would be called an “anti-racist” society as per critical race theory).

This chapter of the Manifesto includes a call for the abolishment of the family, as families are viewed as a mechanism of exploitation and a means to capitalism’s ends.

The official Black Lives Matter website advocated a number of these classic Marxist ideologies found in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto in their “What We Believe” page, including the goal of “disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” The page, which has since been taken down by the group, also provided biographies of the movement’s founders, who describe themselves as “trained Marxists.”

3. The Far-Left charges that the term “cultural Marxism” is used by the Far-Right — especially white supremacists — to slander those who believe in the “social justice movement.”

For example, the Left-wing site Fair writes,

What does cultural Marxism mean for the far right? In the modern iteration, in spaces like Breitbart or Infowars, it is the belief that a failure by communists to topple capitalism through worker revolt has led to a “Plan B” to destroy Western society from the inside. By tearing down the gender binary, de-centering Christianity values, championing the weak over the privileged and creating a multicultural society, revolutionaries have unanchored traditional Western order. Everything from gay rights to Muslim immigration is, in the language of the far right, part of a plot to finish the job that radical worker organizing could not.

Suffice it to say, this is a most paranoid fantasy. Most Marxists don’t speak in these terms, and people who do advocate for immigration, multiculturalism or secularism do so out of a certain regard for human and civil rights. But the far right still obsesses that this is a historical cultural struggle.

This group also points to the fact that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik invoked “cultural Marxism” in his manifesto. In 2011, Breivik went on a killing spree in which he murdered 77 people, the majority of whom were teenagers at a Workers’ Youth League summer camp.

4. While it would nice to have a static, agreed-upon definition of “cultural Marxism,” even this would probably not resolve the controversy over the term, considering its antisemitic origins. What may be the best solution is to pivot our use of language around all current discussions of Marxism to the far more specific and accurate phrase “neo-Marxism.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Lesson in How Not to Fight Antisemitism

From Street Thugs to the High-Brow Salon Circles, the Right to Free Speech Is Increasingly Under Attack

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