Big Tech’s Plot to Stop a Red Wave in 2022

You don’t really think these totalitarian goons are going to voluntarily give up their absolute power.

Gird your loins. It is going to be brutal.

Big Tech’s Blueprint to Stop a Red Wave in 2022

By: Allum Bokhari, The Jewish Voice, July 28, 202:

Republicans think a “red wave” is inevitable in November. But the Democrats still have one big advantage: the ever-tightening grip of Big Tech censorship, which will be used to prevent undecided voters from encountering even the most mainstream conservative news in the runup to the next election. Republicans will have a strong message — but what if voters are prevented from hearing it?

In the runup to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Google completely suppressed Breitbart News from its search results. Compared to 2016, Breibart News went into the 2020 election with a 99.7 percent reduction in visibility for its links on Google search. The censorship was so severe, no-name blogs with plagiarized headlines and content would appear in search results before the original Breitbart News articles. On searches for the term “Joe Biden,” Google cut visibility on Breitbart News links to zero.

Then, a few weeks before the election, Big Tech teamed up to suppress one of the biggest stories of the cycle: the Hunter Biden laptop story. A post-election poll found that 17 percent of Biden voters would have reconsidered their decision had they been aware of the laptop story alone, not counting the hundreds of Breitbart News stories voters didn’t have access to due to Google censorship

Biden’s margin of victory in three swing states was less than a percentage point, making tech censorship a pivotal factor in the outcome. There is no law preventing Silicon Valley from not only repeating this plan in 2022, but scaling it up to a massive level – and that’s exactly what they are doing. The groundwork is already being prepared, in a number of ways:

#1 “Independent” Watchdogs Downgrading Conservative Media — NewsGuard Discredits The Right 

No matter how mainstream you are, you aren’t safe. NewsGuard, the establishment “misinformation” watchdog that received funding from the Pentagon and whose software is being rolled out by millions of schoolteachers across the country, recently downgraded Fox News in its rankings of trustworthy and untrustworthy news sources.

NewsGuard users will now see a red warning label next to Fox News links all around the internet, signaling to users that the source is considered untrustworthy by the organization, which was set up by former establishment media figures Steven Brill and L. Gordon Crovitz in 2018, in the early years of the media-concocted “misinformation” panic.

Fox News and Breitbart News have now both received the negative “red” rating from NewsGuard. This means that, going into the 2022 midterm elections, NewsGuard is warning its users not to read the two leading conservative-leaning sources of online news.

Naturally, the sources that pushed the Russiagate hoax and said the Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinfo” — a claim repeated by NewsGuard’s co-founder — receive no such warning label.

#2 Facebook Suppressing The News — If The Wrong Side Is Winning, Call Off The Game 

Silicon Valley has also found a way to censor all conservative media at the same time. For years, the left has been wailing and screaming about the success of conservative media on Facebook. Despite algorithm changes that suppressed traffic to conservative websites — by a whopping 20 percent in the case of Breitbart News — conservative media has continued to crush the competition.

Facebook has an answer: if conservative media is winning the news war on its platform, it will simply suppress all news at the same time. This month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the platform is shifting resources away from its News Tab and news distribution, and towards a “creator economy.” This means that news will be featured less frequently to users, whether they ask for it or not. This is a way of preventing unwanted narratives from reaching the public, at the very moment when news coverage of the failures of Democrat rule in D.C. will be ramping up.

This is a repeat of what Facebook did after the 2016 election when it reduced the visibility of political posts — a change that resulted in engagement on Donald Trump’s page dropping by almost half.

#3 Taxpayer-Funded Censorship — NPR Creates Misinformation Bureau 

Meanwhile, in the media, the steady drumbeat of the “misinformation” panic continues. Taxpayer-funded NPR is running a whole series about the media-concocted crisis, with a near-exclusive focus on stories that spread in conservative circles. “Misinformation” and “disinformation,” like “fake news,” wasn’t a buzzword before Trump won, but now it is everywhere: it is pushed by think tanks, it is pushed by government-funded agencies, it is debated by congressional committees, it suddenly becomes a new responsibility of the federal government. This is how elites manufacture a crisis — every institution they control saturates the information environment to create a sense of panic.

You can determine the purpose of such a panic from its targets. Ask almost any prominent conservative or even journalists not in alignment with the far left if they’ve received a warning on social media for spreading “misinformation,” and they will likely say yes. The victims include journalists like Alex BerensonSenators like Rand Paul, and of course the former President. Leftist misinformation, whether it concerns “Russiagate,” biological gender differences, or police and crime statistics, is, naturally, never called out.

#4 Regulatory Gridlock — No Recourse For Citizens 

The goal of the misinformation panic has always been to delegitimize conservative viewpoints and give Big Tech a pretext to censor them. So long as the Supreme Court continues to block efforts to address corporate censorship, this trend will only worsen. As things stand, tiny local radio and TV stations are subject to more stringent political neutrality requirements than Google, Facebook, or Twitter.

Previous regulators, perhaps overzealously, sought to prevent even the smallest communication platforms from unduly influencing an election, but today’s Supreme Court seems fine with the most powerful platforms that have ever existed doing so. Carefully considered news tech laws aimed at giving users some measure of due process against the tech giants, most notably the one passed in Texas, have yet to make it past the Supreme Court.

#5 The Institutionalization of Censorship — Facebook’s $150 Million ‘Oversight Board’ 

With the actual courts of the U.S. having their hands tied, Big Tech is funding a parallel justice system to take its place. Facebook recently announced $150 million in new funding for its “Oversight Board,” the private body where users can go to beg for their censored accounts back. Naturally, this “Facebook supreme court” is a farce — filled to the brim with leftists and globalists, it failed to overturn the most egregious act of political censorship ever conducted by Silicon Valley, the blacklisting of Donald Trump.

Like the “misinformation” panic, the point of the Oversight Board is to give a veneer of process and legitimacy to Facebook’s suppression of non-progressive viewpoints.

Going into the 2022 midterm elections, if Silicon Valley gets its way, voters online will see only what the elites want them to see. That January 6 was the worst attack on democracy ever. That Republicans killed people by pointing out masks don’t work. That women in red states are being driven to coathanger abortions.

In short, Silicon Valley will ensure that the misinformation of the establishment gets a megaphone, while any conservative counterpoints are silenced. We already know from 2020 that this works. The question is, what are Republicans going to do about it?

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICES:

MEDIA BLACKS OUT WORLDWIDE PROTESTS: Argentina’s Government Collapsing – Joining Panama, Italy, Holland, Estonia, Sri Lanka, UK

Biden’s Executive Order Put in Place to Stop the Red Wave from Coming Ashore in November

US Taxpayers Are Funding Ukraine’s Blacklisting Of American Dissenters For Thought Crimes

Cases of Gay STD Monkeypox Reported in Children

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

NYC: Public school tells sixth-graders to surveil family and friends for ‘microaggressions’

Just like in the good old days in the Soviet Union.

At This Manhattan Middle School School, Sixth-Graders Are Asked To Surveil Friends and Family for ‘Microaggressions

by Aaron Sibarium, Washington Free Beacon, July 27, 2022:

A New York City public school encouraged students as young as 10 years old to keep a list of all the “microaggressions” they witnessed, both at school and in their own families, according to materials from the school’s curriculum reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. The same students were also asked to list their gender identity—”cisgender,” “nonbinary,” or “trans”—as well as their sexual orientation on a graded worksheet.

The sixth-grade humanities curriculum from Lower Manhattan Community Middle School, where just 31 percent of students are white, required students to read Tiffany Jewell’s This Book Is Anti-Racist, one of only five books assigned for the 2021-2022 year. The book contains 20 lessons on “how to wake up, take action, and do the work”—including the work of confronting the police, which Jewell suggests white students can do without ending up “in jail or harmed.”

“If you are a Black, Brown, or Indigenous Person of the Global Majority, you will need to decide how each outcome could end for you,” Jewell writes in a chapter called “Choosing My Path.” “White people, this is not something you need to do because you are at the center of the system.”

The book also asks students to surveil their friends and family for racist behavior. “Grab your notebook,” one “activity” instructs readers. “Look and listen for the microaggressions around you. Write them down and note your observations.” Another activity asks students how “folx” in their families “resisted” or “contributed to racism,” defined as the “systemic misuse and abuse of power by institutions.”

The curriculum, which went into effect August 2021, came as parents across New York City were mobilizing against critical race theory in public schools—and as education officials across the country were denying that there was any such thing.

“Critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools,” Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, asserted in July 2021. Parents “are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history.”

One month earlier, New York Regents chancellor Lester Young stated that critical race theory “is not our theory of action” and assured parents that “we are not preparing young people to be activists.”

Jewell’s book belies that assurance. “We will work together, in solidarity, to disrupt racism and become anti-racist accomplices,” the preface reads. “There are many moments to pause in this book so you can check in with yourself and grow into your activism.”…

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Public Schools Teach Students Queer Theory As Young as Kindergarten

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

Environmentalism is an Environmental Hazard

Solar panel lead in the groundwater and wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs. 


20 years after voters rejected ‘toilet-to-tap’ water, Los Angeles Democrats brag that they will be the first city in the state to pipe toilet water to faucets for the sake of the environment.

As part of the city’s version of the Green New Deal, a majority of Los Angeles water will be ‘toilet-to-tap’. California Democrats, who refuse to build new dams or do anything to expand water resources, are set to spend at least $12 billion on what they describe as “locally sourced” water which certainly sounds nicer than toilet water. The environmentalist elites will go on drinking bottled water and it will be the city’s poor drinking out of the toilet.

Environmentalists insist that nothing can go wrong even though a 2019 NIH hosted survey noted that “there have been relatively few health-based studies evaluating the microbial risks associated with potable reuse” and that California wants to achieve “a benchmark level of public health protection of 1 infection in 10,000 people per year.” That’s 1,000 people in Los Angeles County. The risks include “pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa” transmitted via a fecal-oral route” including Hepatitis A. A new reservoir might cost $4 billion, but environmentalists would rather spend three times as much on their toilet-to-tap plan.

‘Toilet-to-tap’ is just one of the multitude of ways that environmentalism creates an environmental hazard, threatening public health and undermining life in California.

No state has been as in love with solar power. With over 700 solar power plants and hundreds of thousands of residential solar panels, Californians enjoy an expensive and unreliable energy supply that leads to regular brown-outs. Solar panels generate their energy during the day, when most people aren’t home so that it goes to waste while being useless at night.

But in Hotel California, you can’t check out of subsidizing China’s exported solar industry.

As of 2020, California Democrats imposed a solar mandate requiring all new homes to have solar panels which added over $10,000 to the cost of a new home putting home ownership even further out of the reach of most people and making a mockery of talk of “affordable housing”.

The California Public Utilities Commission has admitted that the state has far more solar panels than it needs, but has argued that it should “dramatically overbuild solar” and then let it go to waste. Wasting a lot of energy has become the best way to stop waste and save the planet.

But that’s not all that’s going to waste.

With a lifespan of 25 years, the early generations of solar panels have begun to clutter up the state’s landfills. Ironically, only about 10% of the solar “green energy” solution are recycled and the rest represent a serious toxic waste hazard. Behind the illusion of clean energy is the grimy reality that solar panels break down and just turn into poisonous and dangerous trash.

Recycling, itself a scam, often just sends our waste abroad to poor countries. A New York Times article described how in Africa, laborers “break them open with machetes and drain the acid into the ground by hand” which “pollutes the soil and water with lead, which can lead to brain damage.” Actual recycling of solar panels is unworkable because it costs more to recycle them than it does to make them. So it’s just more economical to bury solar panels in landfills.

Faced with a growing toxic solar panel problem, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control reclassified them. In a press release typical of the state’s environmentalist puffery which always boast about being the first to pursue some disastrous policy, DTSC boasted that it was the “first in the nation” to “add hazardous waste solar panels to its universal waste program.”

Meredith Williams, DTSC’s director, claimed that lowering hazardous waste restrictions on solar panels was “another great step forward in our state’s efforts to put environmental protection first – both for the health and safety of our people and natural resources.”

California Democrats were boasting of being the first in the nation to ignore the environmental risks of an environmental policy in the name of the environment. The planet was being destroyed to save the planet. And people were being exposed to toxic chemicals to prop up the solar panel industry, its woke investors who finance the Democrats, and Chinese manufacturers.

California solar has become too big to fail. With billions in state subsidies and massive amounts of money seized from homeowners to fund the solar scam, the threat of lead and cadmium leaching into groundwater can’t be permitted to stop the environmentalist solar disaster.

As each generation of solar panels ages into oblivion, the solar trash problem will boom. And it’s just getting started. The hundreds of thousands of rooftop solar panels will either end up in the trash or will require spending twice as much up front to subsidize their eventual disposal.

At least.

While California Democrats fight to shut down the state’s nuclear power, they double down on solar which as Michael Shellenberger has argued, “produced 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste.”

California’s solar subsidies will not only put homeownership further out of reach but are set to cover the state in toxic trash. Solar panels are worthless as energy and they’re worthless as trash. Governments have to mandate and subsidize their installation and then their disposal.

The situation isn’t much better with the ubiquitous wind turbines whose blades can’t be recycled.

Much as solar panels are filling up landfills, so are wind turbine blades. And those blades which “can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing” will first have to be cut up with a “diamond-encrusted industrial saw” and then hauled away on tractor trailers to massive landfills.

Fiberglass blades aren’t biodegradable and burning or crushing them releases toxic fibers that have been linked to everything from skin reactions to lung disease.

Inhaling fiberglass dust is potentially dangerous. Especially from something the size of a jet wing. That just leaves one option. The same option as for nuclear power. Bury them.

Wind turbines, which were supposed to save the environment, are piling up in rural areas in Wyoming, Iowa and South Dakota.

“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” an energy company executive admitted.

So much for clean energy saving the planet.

Environmentalists agonize over the 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in the United States when a single wind turbine blade can weigh 12 tons. It’s estimated that by 2020, wind turbine blade waste will amount to over 2 million tons or 1% of landfill capacity.

The green agenda isn’t saving the planet, it’s destroying it and harming people.

Environmentalism is an environmental hazard that threatens both the ecosystem and public health. From the solar panel lead in the groundwater to the wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs to the toilet water in your sink, there’s nothing ‘clean’ about the environmental agenda.

AUTHOR

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

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

VIDEO: Why We Insist on Getting it Wrong About the Muslim World

We refuse to see Muslims as they see themselves.


Much hope has been placed in an eventual normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

On July 15th, President Biden travelled to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to help cement relations between the two countries and to find another source to lower the cost of gas for Americans before the November midterm elections. The Saudis were gracious enough to invite a group of Israeli journalists to cover the story.

One particular journalist, Gil Tamari, took it upon himself to enter Mecca, film what he saw there and then broadcast it to the world.

This one incident by one individual might potentially have soured the flowering of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Why is it so difficult for those of us from Western democracies to understand the cultural, societal and theological contexts of other cultures? What is it about Islam that we fail to understand?

©Harold Rhode, EmetOnline. All rights reserved.

Despite Leadership Opposition, 24 Republicans Help Send CHIPS Package To Biden’s Desk

The House of Representatives passed the $280 billion semiconductor chip and scientific research and development package on Thursday afternoon, sending the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk.

Despite opposition from GOP leadership, 24 Republicans joined 219 Democrats in supporting the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. All 187 “no” votes on the legislation came from Republicans, while Democratic California Rep. Sara Jacobs, whose family founded chip-maker Qualcomm, voted present.

The bill’s companion legislation passed the Senate on Wednesday afternoon, with seventeen Republican votes in support. Republican leader Mitch McConnell had threatened to filibuster the funding following reports that Senate Democrats had renewed negotiations on an infrastructure package, but ultimately voted in favor of the bill. Later Wednesday evening, Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced that he would support a reconciliation package, leading House Republicans to oppose the subsidy package.

“This legislation comes to the House precisely as Senate Democrats have allegedly struck a deal on their partisan reconciliation bill, pairing up a tone-deaf agenda that on one hand gives billions away in corporate handouts, and on the other hand undoes historic tax cuts implemented by Republicans,” Minority Whip Steve Scalise wrote in a memo urging Republicans to vote against the package.

The CHIPS and Science Act includes $52 billion in subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturers, and $200 billion for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research. The $200 billion includes grants to the National Science Foundation, as well as cash for schools to increase their STEM curriculum offerings.

“This final product is a result of months of bipartisan negotiations. It is also the result of dedicated efforts and long hours put in by the committee’s staff,” Democratic Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the bill’s lead sponsor, said in a floor speech. The provisions “that form this package are vital to ensuring a bold and prosperous future for American science and innovation, maintaining our international competitiveness, and bolstering our economic and national security.”

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Bipartisan Group Of Reps Propose Semiconductor Supply Chain Review

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

VIDEO: State Department will ’empower’ atheists and humanists, but no mention of helping Christians or Jews

Here’s this week’s episode of Shout Out Patriots: Federal tax dollars to “promote atheism worldwide”

When Congressman Jim Banks of Indiana made the startling revelation on June 30 that our U.S. State Department was using taxpayer money to fund a program to “promote atheism worldwide,” the news was met with little fanfare, criticism, or outrage.

As quickly as the story hit the news, it vaporized in a blink of an eye, perhaps faster than that shocking news story of Joe Biden taking showers with his daughter, Ashley, that lead to her sex addiction.

But imagine if the State Department was caught funding a program to send Christian missionaries worldwide to spread the Gospel of Christ.

There would be lawsuits, congressional hearings, and a complete media meltdown.

The State Department said its atheist outreach program was funded through its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) in the form of one or two $500,000 grants.

The objective was “to combat discrimination, harassment, and abuses against atheist, humanist, non-practicing and non-affiliated individuals.”

There was NO mention of the grant helping combat the abuses of foreign powers against Jews or Christians, such as those living in Pakistan or China.

“It is one thing for the Department to be tolerant and respectful of a wide range of belief systems, and to encourage governments to respect the religious freedom interests of their citizens.

“It is quite another for the United States government to work actively to empower atheists, humanists, non-practicing, and non-affiliated [individuals],“ Congressman Banks, along with 14 other Members of Congress, wrote to Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.

In this episode of Shout Out Patriots, our team raises questions about the constitutionality of the State Department’s atheist and humanist outreach program and whether that taxpayer money actually went where it was intended.

Perhaps that money never left the United States. Instead, maybe it’s sitting in the coffers of radical atheist and humanist groups inside America, ready to fund crippling lawsuits against Christians and Jews for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Who knows for sure? But one thing we do know, the State Department is in no hurry to cough up answers to Congressman Banks’ hard-hitting questions.

©Martin Mawyer, Shout Out Patriots. All rights reserved.

Cancelled Ahead Of Time

It was 1988.

The gallery was located at the former town house where Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn used to live.  The walls had the reverberations of Watergate intrigues.  Now, it was under a new ownership, who converted the historic— or infamous — townhouse into an Art Gallery which was located very closed to Dupont Circle.

The new owner was a dentist who loved the arts. I had met her before at one of my previous art exhibitions.  She had admired my work.  One day, she called and asked me if I wanted to exhibit at her gallery.  I went to see her space.  The exhibits were held in the rooms downstairs. She, her husband, and children lived upstairs. When she showed me her living quarters I was able to see the all-pink bathroom of Sally Quinn!  Even the bidet!  I never thought “Sally” will have such a color in her bathroom!

After a 20-year career exhibiting in Washington, DC with a variety of my collections inspired by Egyptian art, I had been invited on an official visit to Egypt by the Ministry of Higher Education in Cairo in 1978 and given special pass to visit the Cairo Museum all the times I wanted, and an interview with its Director.  Also the government gave me a car and a chauffeur for trips around Cairo.

The first expedition was to the pyramids in Giza. When I was alone in the chamber, I was able to lie down inside the sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid.  Then, I was taken to the Step Pyramid at Saqqara.  Later, they took me to Luxor, Karnak, The Valley of the Kings, Aswan and Abu Simbel and other important archaeological sites.

I had an interview published by the leading Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.  Also interviews and photos of my art were published in many international publications.  The authorities in Pharonic Egypt had valued my work.

So back in Washington ten years after my trip to Egypt, I decided to have a retrospective of my paintings in my new friend’s gallery.  And I had room for exhibiting 105 pieces.  This exhibit looked very good!

For some reason, unlike in Egypt, and despite my career as an artist with 20 years of exhibitions and regardless of honors from experts as well as very good comments from the public not a single Washington, DC “critic” had been willing to review my work until then.

This time, as usual, once again my exhibit was completely ignored by art critics.What was the reason? Perhaps I was too shy?

This was the time of Boy George and other unusually dressed singers and artists.  I decided that maybe I needed a “gimmick” to at least attract the attention of those subjective individuals who call themselves “critics.”

So I tried my scheme. I dressed outrageously for the first time at an art center in Maryland mansion having a group show.  I went alone, leaving somebody in the car outside in case I had to escape in a hurry.  To my surprise, I was a success and managed to be the center of attention.  Not that I wanted to be, I am the opposite of that!  I was doing that of pure necessity, only to finally get some publicity for my work!  So although it was a success, I left with a sense of relief…that no one had called the police.

Afterwards, I read that People Magazine was having its 10-year anniversary party at a historic mansion in Washington, DC.  What an opportunity for publicity. The problem was that it was by invitation and I didn’t know of anybody who received one!

But necessity does wonders.  I decided to try to repeat my previous success and dressed outrageously.  Because whatever will be will be.  The house was on a hill in Washington. My platform shoes were killing me as I walked. I was concerned that I would fall down before reaching my target.  I went with a friend who was holding me during the climbing of the hill. I was hoping that I didn’t have to make a running escape, because we didn’t had an official invitation.

I had been present at an art exhibit that didn’t require an invitation in that same historical mansion before.  So I had an idea of the floor plan.  I had to walk up to some steps to enter the foyer.  And if allowed, go upstairs via the grand stairway.  Before departing, my friend had asked me whether I had an invitation.  I replied, “Of course.” I lied.  If I had told him the truth he would have refusde to go with me.  But before we entered the mansion I told him, “Follow me—whatever happens and whatever I do.”

I made my entrance.  Disbelieving eyes immediately turned to me.  A man and a woman came running to see who in the hell I was, and if my companion and I were on the guest list.  The man asked for my name, which I gave him.  Of course, he went up and down the invitation list a few times but could not find my name anywhere.

“I received an invitation,” I said calmly.

And I pretended to look in what was not a pocket in my outfi,t and said, “Oh I must have left it at home.”

Turning to my companion I asked him, “Do you have it in your pocket?”

“I do not, you didn’t give it to me.” He nervously said.

“Well,” I said, “I guess it is at home…”

The gatekeeper and the woman with him told me “wait a second” and went away I don’t know where in a big rush.  Not long after they came back and announced, “Welcome.”

And we went upstairs very, very slowly because I was worried that I would have an accident because of my platform shoes and fall down the stairs.  Many curious people in attendance followed me with their eyes, trying to figure out “who was that strange vision who made that entrance.”

In the main room, their eyes were on me again and I didn’t see any familiar faces.  I walked around, pretending to look at the photographs of the front covers of People magazine over the last 10 years.  Some people approached me out of curiosity and smiled like they approved my look.  I smiled back, but didn’t introduce myself, remaining aloof.

After a while, a lady came over to introduce herself.  She told me she owned a castle in England, and invited me to visit.  I let her talk all she wanted to, and replied in simple monosyllables.  Later, while some of the invited guests were leaving, the lady kept talking me excitedly, when two skinny little women walking side-by-side who reminded me of the Godzilla Mothra Twins appeared like magic. Then they came in my direction.  Fortunately they interrupted the woman with the castle in England!

They said they were very interested in me.  They were People Magazine reporters. And they asked all kind of questions, trying to find out more about me.  I finally broke down under their questioning, and mentioned that I was an artist specializing in Egyptian Art of the Pharaonic era. They might have guessed, since I was wearing three necklaces I bought in Luxor in 1978—but they didn’t.

I tried to continue the conversation about Egypt but they keep asking me where I was born.  I didn’t have a typical Spanish accent, because I was had been an actor in my country and in Spain.  So I told them that I had lived in Europe and continued my conversation about Egypt.  But they kept interrupting me, asking, “Are you Italian?’”

I said, “No.”

And tried to continue talking about my artwork.

“Are you French?”

I replied, “I lived in Paris, but I am not French.”

You may wonder why I was so insistent upon the maintaining mystery of my origin. So I will tell you. My friend, the late and well-known writer, Guillermo Cabrera Infante, had advised me to keep mum way back when I lived in Madrid, Spain, as a young man, in 1966. He told me: “The art world, and the publishing world, are dominated by left-wing Marxists and Communists, so if you want to be in the arts do not mention that you are Cuban — because it will close all the doors for you.”

Based on his advice, as soon as I began exhibiting in the United States, I decided to write in my published biographies that I was born on a Caribbean island… but not mention which one.

But these People Magazine Godzilla Mothra little twins were pressing me about my birthplace. They were so curious that I forgot the advice of Cabrera Infante, and began to blab.

I finally said, “On a Caribbean island.”

But they didn’t leave me alone with that, and asked, “Which island?”

I wanted to say “None of your business.”

But I didn’t. I failed because I didn’t want to be rude. After many more questions about which island, asked in many different ways, I finally blabbed the magic name, “Cuba.”

As automatically as two persons at once can be, they did an immediate about-face movement and abandoned me instantly. I felt like a used piece of toilet paper that had suddenly appeared in the middle of the salon.

I decided to leave immediately. My friend had to follow me as I walked extra carefully out the door in my platform shoes.

My friend Cabrera Infante had been right. Obviously, the People Magazine reporters had deserted me in a flash because they saw I was not a lover of the “Cuban Paradise” that Fidel Castro made of my island.

The Marxists and American left think that any Cuban should be in Cuba supporting Castro instead of living in the U.S. as a Cuban-American.

So, there was nothing else I could do in the art world of the country which I had become a citizen.  I was a non-person.  I did not exist as an artist to them, no matter what.  And that was the moment I decided not to bother exhibiting my work here any longer.

For I had found myself completely “canceled” decades before the “Woke” cancellations in America today.  Because I was a Cuban-American who did not like Castro, I had become a non-person who was treated as if he did not exist.  It was pretty much like in the Soviet Union, except for the gulags and firing squads.

At that instant, I knew my career as an artist in America had come to an end.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Spider & The Fly column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Inveterate Liar Schiff Looking to Replace Pelosi as House Speaker

Breitbart News reports that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who propagandized about the debunked Russian collusion hoax for years and is now doing the same about the sham January 6 show trial of his political opponents, is campaigning to become House Speaker.

Schiff reportedly “is gauging members’ interest and planting the seed” to gain enough support to potentially replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as leader after the midterms. Conversely, Pelosi has been “grooming” Schiff as a possible successor.

Some in the Democrat caucus are opposed to Schiff because he does not fit the “intersectional” qualities the Democrat party fancies. Intersection opposition to Schiff reportedly includes Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who have allied themselves closely with Pelosi’s reign as speaker.

One of Schiff’s potential motivations to become leader of the Democrat caucus is to protect his image. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is likely to become House speaker after Republicans reclaim the chamber, has promised to cancel Schiff’s committee assignments upon victory.

“You look at Adam Schiff—he should not be serving on Intel when he has openly, knowingly now used a fake dossier, lied to the American public in the process and doesn’t have any ill will [and] says he wants to continue to do it,” McCarthy added.


Adam Schiff

27 Known Connections

Schiff Lies Repeatedly to Promote the Trump-Russia “Collusion” Hoax

In a March 22, 2017 interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Schiff claimed there was “more than circumstantial evidence” that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had colluded with Russian government operatives to tilt the election in his favor. When Todd asked Schiff if he had “seen direct evidence of collusion,” the congressman replied: “I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do.” From that point forward, Schiff established himself as one of the Democrat Party’s leading voices demanding Trump’s impeachment, repeatedly proclaiming to the media that the evidence against the president was overwhelming. For example:

  • In December 2017, Schiff told CNN: “The Russians offered help, the [Trump] campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. That is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.”
  • And in May 2018, Schiff told ABC that the Russian trolling of Democratic National Committee emails was “like Watergate in the sense that you had a break in at the Democratic headquarters, in this case a virtual one, not a physical break in, and you had a president as part of a cover up.” Schiff subsequently said that Trump’s crime was of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate…”

To learn more about Adam Schiff, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The World’s Most Dangerous Idea Explained

If there is no right and wrong, we sail through perilous waters.


I think that I have nailed the World’s Most Dangerous Idea. It’s Dialetheism.

Never heard of it? You are not alone. Most people haven’t. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t subscribe to it. It’s a kind of sophisticated version of moral relativism.

Here’s an example of dialetheism at work. A recent issue of Scientific American ran a very unscientific opinion piece, “What Quantum Mechanics Can Teach Us about Abortion”. It was written by an abortion doctor in Salt Lake City, Cara C. Heuser, who may know a lot about obstetrics and gynaecology, but about quantum mechanics not so much maybe.

Quantum mechanics is basically pretty easy to understand, as fans of Marvel films know. Many of their heroes’ superpowers and many of their plot lines incorporate gobbledygook about quantum mechanics. Dr. Heuser may have learned a thing or two from Marvel scripts. “Is light a particle or a wave?” she asks. “Quantum mechanics, a discipline within physics, has demonstrated that both are true. Sometimes light acts like a particle, sometimes a wave.”

Similarly, she explains:

“That these two seemingly irreconcilable beliefs could come together gives me hope that similar harmony could be achieved in the discussion of other deeply polarizing topics, including abortion.”

Even though she performs abortions, Dr Heuser believes that she is serving the cause of life by helping women through difficult pregnancies. This leads her to conclude triumphantly:

Particle and wave, abortion providers and ethical physicians, pro-life and pro-choice.

Actually, the fact that light considered from one point of view is a wave, and from another point of view is particles does not mean that it is both at the same time and in the same respect. It means that there is something missing in our understanding of light. Waves and particles are complementary, not contradictory, features of light.

Quantum physics can’t solve moral questions because killing an unborn child is not good from one point of view, and bad from another. It’s just bad. Its effects may be both good and bad, but not the act itself.

Dr Heuser’s Marvel-ous insight is a handy illustration of dialetheism – that contradictory statements can both be true. “The Empire State Building is in New York” and “the Empire State Building is in Los Angeles” are both true.

If this were actually the case, all of Western philosophy would tumble down. Ever since Plato and Aristotle there has been nigh-universal acceptance of the Law of Non-Contradiction, that A and not-A cannot both be true.

However, as a defence of abortion, the notion of dialetheism is catching on.

A philosopher at Wofford College, in South Carolina, Katherine Valde, recently published a brief article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, in which she defended her own decision to have an abortion.

She didn’t do this for what might be regarded as compelling reasons:

“My abortion didn’t save my life or allow me to finish school. It just let me live a life I wanted. And, for whatever reason, that isn’t supposed to be enough.”

Why, she asks, does she need to have a reason? Isn’t the fact that she wants it good enough? Rod Stewart provided an anthem for dialetheism in his song: “If loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right.” Dr Valde dresses up this sentiment in philosophical garb. She writes:

“I’m tired of the defense of abortion that relies on the idea that there are good and bad reasons to get abortions…”

Unsurprisingly, as a professional philosopher, Dr Valde is fascinated by “the possibility of metaphysical dialetheism- that there might be contradiction in the world itself.”

What if dialetheism is true? There can be no difference between good and bad, right and wrong. What can justify jailing the perpetrator of the Buffalo mass shooting? What will happen to morality? No dialetheist will ever seriously defend torturing babies – but it will be hard to explain why it’s evil. And inevitably there will be more people who torture babies. Ideas, you know, have consequences.

There is a maxim in logic, ex absurdo sequitur quodlibetfrom a contradiction you can derive whatever you want. Ideas built on contradiction are pure fantasy. That’s why the gobbledygook of the Marvel Universe is so popular. You can get whatever you want from it. But that’s also why it’s not reality!

The emergence of dialetheism is one of the most corrupting consequences of defending legalised abortion. It’s easier to argue that right and wrong don’t exist than to defend a decision to take an innocent life.

AUTHOR

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook

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

Anyone Who Says America is a ‘Democracy’ is a Closet Communist

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams, The Letters of John and Abigail Adams


There are many who are worried about the fate and future of our Constitutional Republic. We are among those concerned.

Since the election of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. there has been a concerted effort to undermine our Constitution and with it America’s Republican form of government.

A Republic is a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the central idea that sovereignty rests with the people.

When the sovereignty of the people is taken away so to are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

There’s a constant myth that is used by citizens, politicians, academics, in books, the media, on social media and in documentary films saying that America is a Democracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth and the intent of America’s Founding Fathers.

According to quote trackers Bartleby and the Yale Book of Quotations in the notes of James McHenry, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention was this statement,

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

The Founder’s Political Spectrum

Most people use the political spectrum of Left vs. Right to measure political parties. This unfortunately distorts the true reality of what must be measured: government power not political parties. Government is defined as “a system of ruling or controlling” therefore the founders needed to find a way to measure the coercive power or systematic control of government over it’s people in or to find a medium, balance being “People’s Law”. This this their political “yardstick” so to speak.

There are three types of law on the Founder’s Political Spectrum:

  1. Ruler’s Law – dominated by the ruling power; typically identified as a tyrannical monarchy.
  2. People’s Law – government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough to abuse the people.
  3. No Law – chaotic confusion and anarchy.

RULER’S LAW   ⇒   PEOPLE’S LAW   ⇒   NO LAW

Tyranny     —      People’s Law   —       Anarchy


The Bottom Line

On November 2nd, 2020 we published a column titled “America In Peril — America 2020 Predicted in 1961.”

In 1961, W. Cleon Skousen, former FBI agent and author of international bestseller “The 5,000 Year Leap”, released “The Naked Communist” which detailed the 45 specific goals necessary to undermine the republic and replace our Judeo-Christian heritage with a godless Marxism.

We warned then that we were at a tipping. We warned that as government grew so did rulers law.

We have seen since the inauguration of  Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. government powers growing exponentially.  We have warned that as Biden drops in the polls he, his administration and his policies become more and more radical.

Since Biden’s inauguration we have gone from prosperity to stagnation to inflation and now to a recession.  All caused by the “rulers laws.”

Watch this shocking exposé, the stunning accuracy of Skousen’s predictions, and what we are now facing in America.

Franklin wrote, “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.

If anyone says the word democracy, they are by definition a closet communist.

Conduct your own analysis, pray, and vote in the 2022 midterm elections.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

WATCH: America in Peril

©BuzzSaw Media. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Says America On ‘Right Path’ As Report Shows Two Consecutive Quarters Of Declining GDP

VIDEO: Al Gore’s Climate Hypocrisy — How Gore Cashes in on Going Green

“Toxic? If by ‘divisive and toxic’ you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!” Marc Morano


Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd… Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.

TRANSCRIPT:

Jesse Watters: Marc Morano is the publisher of Climate Depot and author of the Green Fraud. So Marc, you heard this same gore song and dance before you heard hear it about every 5-to-10 years when he has a new investment fund and documentary. Has anything changed?

Marc Morano: No. Nothing has changed for Al Gore’s world. Unfortunately, he has been replaced by Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg (& AOC) and now he has been replaced by random activists stopping cars on the highways in major cities trying to get Biden to declare a climate emergency.

Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd. Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.

Jesse Watters: If we had listened to all these Gore predictions, people wouldn’t have air conditioning couldn’t heat homes in winter time he would actually be killing people, wouldn’t he?

Marc Morano: There is a war on air conditioning. There is a war on, gasoline power there is a war on your thermostat, they want to have governments with smart meters. They have done everything. The debate has changed though. Gore actually did talk about sea level and temperature. Now we have NASA scientists claiming White supremacists are causing global warming. Professors at Rhode Island saying the data is racist and you can’t trust data anymore. Science has been turned on its head. If you go back and look at Gore’s first film it’s kind of quaint considering how crazy the climate movement. We have reached peak climate insanity.

When you have Sen. Joe Manchin vote against a pork barrel spending bill last week or say he wouldn’t support it, you have climate activists like Bill McKibben, Gore’s friend, claim a no vote will create a new geologic era in the earth named after Manchin. Voting ‘No’ on a a pork barrel bill will alter the geologic history of the Earth. This is  Madness Jesse, it’s madness. And Gore is responsible for birthing this madness.

Jesse Watters: Gore he has gotten rich. $300 million man now? How does he make all this money?

Marc Morano: It’s amazing. When Gore left the vice presidency in 2001, it was estimated by Fast Company magazine he was worth about 1 or $2 million. Fast forward, about a decade, and he is worth at least 100 million and then he went on a quest to be the world’s first carbon billionaire. How? He had a Powerpoint that was reported on in the “the Washington Post” and other major publications that listed all the companies you should be investing in. Guess what? When Obama became president and did his big green stimulus, Al Gore was funded lavishly by federal dollars, and as you mentioned he sold al Jazeera. That wasn’t enough. He went on a quest to be the world’s first fake meat billionaire. They are shutting down modern farming in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands and replacing it with lab-grown meat. Guess who the pioneers pushing it are? Bill  Gates and of course Al Gore is standing to profit hugely off of our lack of lab grown meat, profiting off the fake meat business now.

Jesse Watters: I don’t think fake meat looks very good for you because al is not looking very trim to be generous. Marc, thank you so much for your analysis.

Marc Morano: Thank you, Jesse. Appreciate it.

©Marc Morano, Climate Depot. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate-related deaths’ approach zero – Dropped by over 99% since 1920

Watch: Gore claims ‘climate deniers are really in some ways similar’ to cops at Uvalde shooting who sat idle – ‘They heard the screams, they heard the gunshots, & nobody stepped forward’

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy

Watch: Morano on Tucker Carlson on energy & food chaos: ‘This is a war against modern civilization’ – World Economic Forum & UN seek ‘controlling humans’

Founding Father James Madison on the Chopping Block?

Tragically, slavery has been around from the beginning of time. It is still practiced even today in some places where Christianity is not dominant or has not been dominant. But while slavery was a fact of life in the 1700’s—not only in colonial America, but all over the world—it was the system put in place by America’s founding fathers that eventually led to its dissolution.

But that doesn’t matter to the woke mob, which insists that historical figures be held to today’s standards, and which seeks to tear down America’s history and rebuild it on a neo-Marxist foundation.

Thus, the woke crowd goes after any founding father in any way associated with slavery. Most recently comes the attack on James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution.

The New York Post reports on an overhaul of Montpelier, the house of Madison, noting that a $10 million grant from “left-leaning philanthropist” David M. Rubenstein has put slavery and racism center-stage, shoving Madison’s authorship of the United States Constitution off into the wings. “Instead, blindsided tourists are hammered by high-tech exhibits about Madison’s slaves and current racial conflicts.”

Tourists visiting Montpelier may be coming to learn about the Constitution, but they are sorely disappointed. One describes it as, “A one hour Critical Race Theory experience disguised as a tour.”

And so it is that, in James Madison’s own home, our fourth president and a key architect of the Constitution is relentlessly attacked for not living up to today’s standards.

Madison, though a slave-owner, helped create a framework for one day abolishing slavery. By the standards of their contemporary world, America’s founders were deeply progressive in their desire to eliminate slavery—and far out of step with most of the rest of the world.

Much of the freedom we enjoy today gets back to those men and women who settled America for religious liberty and then the founding fathers who implemented Biblical principles to create America. Madison played a key role.

He attended the Presbyterian College of Princeton, New Jersey (now Princeton University) rather than the Anglican College of William and Mary, where sons of Virginia were expected to attend. He learned directly under Rev. John Witherspoon, who also later turned out to be an important founding father.

Perhaps, the most important lesson that James Madison took home from his Princeton education was the firm belief in the Biblical doctrine of man’s sinfulness—and its implications for political science.

John Eidsmoe, author of the landmark book, Christianity and the Constitution, points out: “One thing is certain, the Christian religion, particularly Rev. Witherspoon’s Calvinism, influenced Madison’s view of law and government.”

Madison once wrote, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.”

After the Constitutional Convention, but before the document was ratified, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote letters to the editor of newspapers in the state of New York, using the pseudonym Publius to argue for ratification. These letters were gathered together later and are known as the Federalist Papers and reflect the genius of American political science.

The Federalist Papers don’t quote the Bible directly, but they express a Biblical worldview on man’s nature and the potential corruption of power.

What is the essence of tyranny according to James Madison, author of Federalist #47?  The answer is having all three branches of government in the hands of one or a few.

In Federalist #51, he argues that “if men were angels,” government wouldn’t even be necessary. But since men aren’t angels, government is necessary. Furthermore, we also need protection from the government, since it is run by men, not angels.

In Federalist #42, Madison explains the Constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to abolish the slave trade 20 years after its ratification: “It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy.”

Americans need to learn the true history of our rich past. Yes, America has a checkered past with slavery and segregation. But so does the rest of the entire world—and the principles of founders like Madison were on the forefront of ending these evils. As America’s greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., observed in his outstanding “I Have a Dream” speech, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

We will not move toward a positive future if we distort our past, as the woke mobs now do. As James Madison himself once said: “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

Trump Authorized National Guard for Jan. 6 but Congress, D.C. Didn’t Request Its Use, Former Aide Says

Lies exposed.

Trump authorized as many as 20,000 Guard troops for use on Jan. 6, 2021, during a meeting several days earlier. The offer of troops was rejected by Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he said.

Trump Authorized National Guard for Jan. 6 but Congress, DC Didn’t Request Its Use, Former Aide Says

Under the law, a president can’t order domestic deployment of Guard; local officials must request it

By Joseph M. Hanneman, The Epoch Times, July 25, 2022:

A claim by the vice chair of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee that President Donald Trump didn’t order the use of National Guard troops in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, is true because that would have been a violation of the law, former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel says.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier that Trump “never issued any order to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol.”

Patel said that Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use in D.C. or elsewhere on Jan. 6, 2021, but the use of those troops was later rejected by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the U.S. Capitol Police.

Under the law, the president can’t order the deployment of the military for use inside the United States, Patel said. At the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest, Patel was chief of staff for Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller.

“She knows the truth—45 [Trump] authorized the National Guard days before Jan. 6, and Pelosi and Bowser rejected it,” Patel told The Epoch Times. “Cheney knows it’s unconstitutional for any president to ever order the military to deploy domestically. He may only authorize their use, then there must be a request.
“By her own quote, she has cleared Trump of the very thing she has accused him of from Day 1—an insurrection,” Patel said. “So, yes, Trump never made that illegal order. He followed the law.”

Authorized 20,000 Guard Troops

As Patel explains in the new EpochTV documentary, “The Real Story of Jan. 6,” Trump authorized as many as 20,000 Guard troops for use on Jan. 6, 2021, during a meeting several days earlier. The offer of troops was rejected by Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he said.

Under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military can’t be used domestically for enforcing laws or keeping order. Part-time citizen-soldiers can only be used under certain conditions.

“The Supreme Court said two things must happen,” said Patel, the host of “Kash’s Corner” on EpochTV. “One: the President of the United States has to authorize, not order, the use of the National Guard.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser rejected President Trump’s offer of National Guard troops on January 6 in this letter a day before.

‘Once that happens, step two has to happen as well before they can be deployed,” he said, “and that is a request from the head of state, the governor, or in this case, Mayor Bowser because it’s Washington, D.C. Or federal law enforcement needs to request the National Guard to be deployed.

“If those two things don’t happen, then any issuance of the National Guard would be literally unconstitutional.”

According to the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General’s report regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the use of National Guard troops was discussed during a White House meeting on Jan. 3, 2021.

In attendance were Miller, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley, presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Patel.

“The President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event.”

Patel said at the end of the meeting that Trump brought up Jan. 6, 2021.

“President Trump pivoted and said, basically, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing for security’—I’m paraphrasing here—‘for anything that might happen on Jan. 6?’

“He said, ‘If you need up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women, not just in Washington, D.C., but anywhere in the country, you have my authorization,’” Patel recalled.

The Defense Department then took the presidential authorization to the U.S. Capitol Police and Bowser.

“Mayor Bowser, in writing, pursuant to her own letter that we released from her, sent to the Department of Defense, declined to issue any more National Guardsmen and women,” Patel said.

The same authorization was taken to the Capitol Police, which declined additional National Guard personnel, Patel said.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary

Biden’s Cybersecurity Czar Says ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Major Threat to US Security

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

Florida School Board Member ID’s 75 Books with Pornographic or Inappropriate Material in Library

Only 75? Looks like Democrats have been resting on their degenerate laurels.

Florida School Board Member ID’s 75 Books with Pornographic or Inappropriate Material in Library

By: Allen Moro | Jul 27, 2022

More than 70 books with pornographic and overly sexual content were discovered in a Florida school’s library, according to a concerned mother and school board member.

Ashley Gilhousen, a Clay County School District board member, is calling for “disciplinary action” for whoever is responsible for allowing children to be exposed to pornographic material.

“I don’t think there’s any justification for it,” Gilhousen told Fox News. “And I can tell you my own research in our school library so far I’ve identified 75 books that I’m working to challenge to get off of ourselves.”

In an interview with Fox, Gilhousen presented a series of examples of books that were available to children at the school.

One of the books, “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison describes a boy who remembers participating in oral sex as a 10 year old.

“I’m disgusted that anybody would think that that’s appropriate material to have in a school library,” Gilhousen, who is a mom of three boys, said. “There needs to be disciplinary action for anybody who offers this kind of material to a child.”

Gilhousen also described some of the literature in the library as “politically driven agenda-type books.”

“Julian is a Mermaid,” a book found by the school board member, is recommended for elementary school children and regarded as an introduction to gender fluidity.

The story features a boy who puts on lipstick and jewelry then goes to an NYC mermaid festival where he can finally express himself.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

WATCH: Teacher Turns His High School Classroom Into a Gay/Trans Nightclub

FBI Leadership Pressuring Agents to Artificially Pad Domestic Terrorism Data

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

The Splendor of the ‘Splendor of Truth’

Stephen P. White: Instead of following St. John Paul II to liberation and salvation, the new dispensation reduces the moral life to this: “What is the least I can do and be saved?”


August of next year marks the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of Pope St. John Paul II’s magisterial encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor. The approach of this anniversary presents an opportunity to rediscover an encyclical that provides a powerful antidote to much of the moral and doctrinal confusion in the Church today.

It’s precisely for this reason that not a few Catholics would like nothing better than to see Veritatis Splendor demolished, root and branch.

The 30th anniversary of Veritatis Splendor will arrive just a few months before the opening of the Synod on Synodality in Rome. It’s no secret that many Catholics see the synod as an opportunity to hold a referendum on certain, entirely predictable, aspects of the Church’s moral teaching. The Synod’s Relator General, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, has recently indicated that the Church needs to rethink its opposition to homosexual acts in order to account for new “sociological-scientific” advancements.

Set aside, for the moment, the ridiculous claim that the Church’s understanding of the nature of human sexual acts is contingent upon “sociological-scientific” anything. One of the great refrains of Veritatis Splendor is St. Paul’s admonition to the Church of Rome: “Do not be conformed to this world.” This is not only a moral warning, though it is that. It’s also a warning against a worldly view of man, which forces a separation between freedom and truth, obedience and love.

A culture that combines radical notions of individual autonomy with a Gnostic rejection of the built-in meaning of material (and, therefore, bodily) reality is a culture in need of conversion, not indulgence. Such a culture, like the one that dominates the West today, is not simply corrosive of the moral life; it’s a culture inoculated against the reality of the Incarnation.

In an interview from earlier this year, Spanish theologian, Julio Martinez, S.J., candidly laid out the project he and other moral theologians are engaged in. “It is fundamental to untie the knots ‘Veritatis Splendor’ made in Catholic morals.” Those knots, he insisted, originated in the failure of Humanae Vitae to discern the circumstances of family life “in an accurate way.”

Only by moving beyond Veritatis Splendor and Humanae Vitae, can Amoris Laetitia be reinterpreted in ways that revolutionize Catholic moral theology. Such a revolution would free moral discernment from the constraints placed on human conscience by the moral law and the Church’s insistence on the objective moral character of certain acts.

Just this month, a kerfuffle arose at the Pontifical Academy of Life over the publication of a volume of essays on various bioethical issues which seemed to contradict (you guessed it) Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor. One member of the academy Dr. Mónica López Barahona, who also serves on its Board of Directors, insisted that the text did not reflect the consensus of the academy and the way it was published and presented caused “scandal and embarrassment.”

What does all of this add up to? That’s difficult to say. There are some rumors that Pope Francis might be working on a new encyclical on bioethics, one which might revisit certain themes of Humanae Vitae. Those are just rumors at this point, liable to exaggeration according to one’s hopes or fears for such an encyclical.

Perhaps the growing sense that this pontificate is drawing to a close has created a heightened sense of urgency among those who see Pope Francis – rightly or wrongly – as their last, best hope to eradicate the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council provided by his predecessors and, with it, the moral/theological project embodied most definitively in Veritatis Splendor.

Underlying many of the criticisms of Veritatis Splendor is the belief that it is not mercy about sin we require, but liberation from the yoke of the moral law itself. Such a mindset completely obscures the reality that the moral law is the surest path to true freedom. Instead of seeing the moral law as a means of our liberation and salvation, the new dispensation reduces the moral life to precisely the sort of small-minded legalism that concerns itself primarily with the question, “What is the least I can do and be saved?”

Such an approach relies on conscience and discernment – both essential to the moral life – but denies them the tools and formation necessary for their proper operation. Vice chains us to sin, dulling the conscience and clouding our discernment. In fact, it is precisely because our refusal to obey the moral law blinds our conscience and distorts our faculties of judgment that the Church insists our culpability for even heinous sins may be partly mitigated. Are we to boast that our moral decrepitude has been dipped in the healing waters of mitigated culpability?

Obedience to the moral law is the surest path to freedom – the freedom to become who we were made to be, to love God and neighbor as we ought. That’s why God engraves the law on our hearts, reveals it to us in Scripture, and then give us the Church to safeguard and pass on the same. And that’s why Veritatis Splendor can insist, “human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance of that law.”

Our Lord says to his disciples, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” That’s not a test; it’s a promise.

Many Catholics today seem to think that freedom exists in the “spaces between” the moral teachings of the Church. They seem to think freedom exists in being allowed the most possible wiggle room. This is a childish, and indeed, legalistic, view of morality that makes us slaves to the law. When satisfying the requirements of the law becomes an end in itself, mercy becomes nothing more than lowering the threshold by which the minimum requirements of the law are satisfied.

Veritatis Splendor is a powerful corrective to such thinking, and an ever-timely reminder of the moral life to which we are called, for which we were made, and by which, through grace, we are saved.

You may also enjoy:

Robert Royal’s Social “Science” at the JPII Institute

Elizabeth A. Mitchell’s The Dubia Were Answered

AUTHOR

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is executive director of The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America and a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing article is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.