VIDEO: Political Prisoner Jeremy Brown Shares Exclusive Message on Sham January 6th Kangaroo Committee

A reader sent us the following statement from Jeremy Brown who was arrested and is now in prison for supporting President Donald J. Trump.

Candidate Jeremy Brown for the Florida House of Representatives arrested for supporting President Trump speaks out

My name is Jeremy Brown. I’m a 20 year retired US Army Special Forces master sergeant and combat veteran. Currently I’m a January 6 political prisoner of war, and Florida House of Representatives candidate on the ballot in the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

Coming up, I’m coming to you today on the 253rd day of my illegal, unconstitutional imprisonment to advise and warn the American people that what you’re about to see is part of this compromised government’s well orchestrated and highly produced lie meant to target the minds and perceptions of the uninformed and misinformed masses with the intent to demonize and dehumanize their opposition. This opposition is not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, left or right, black, white or brown. Their opponents are anyone that disagrees or even asks questions about their false authority, and their anti-American anti-human, and anti-liberty agenda. Their goal is to take down America and build back better in a form suitable to their authoritarian utopia dreamland, also known as the Great Reset.

Just look around.

They are destroying every aspect of what made this the most free and powerful nation on Earth. Their goal is to convince us that we are global citizens, not Americans. They are doing this through an order-out-of-chaos strategy, and they are attempting to divide the power of the Americans by turning us against each other. They need us to blame each other so that we don’t blame and hold them accountable. And who are them, bodies of unelected global elites like the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and many others. They seek to divide us based on race, gender, our children’s education, medical mandates, and even the weather. Their gloves are off, and they have crossed the Rubicon.

Their fake color or cultural revolution has been building for decades. But now it is out in the open for all to see. Those who seek to rule over us must seize total control before you recognize what is going on. But will you recognize it? Will you see it for what it is? Look around you. Look at your children. Look at your supermarket shelves, your gas tank, your life savings, your workplace, your community, your culture?

Do you see it?

With all of our everyday problems, why do you think gun control and domestic terrorism are the DC topics of the day? At a time when violent crime and property crime are skyrocketing faster than inflation and gas prices, your government wants you disarmed. While your tax dollars are sending free guns to Ukraine, they want to take your guns away. Why? Think about this statement. When politicians want to take away your guns, that is exactly when you need your guns. And the founding fathers knew and lived through this. These criminals know that people are waking up to their corruption, and when the lights come on, they’ll be the rats and roaches running to hide.

What you’re going to see tonight is their attempt to fortify their false narrative, and they hope to use this as their final justification to pass laws making all of us domestic terrorists. Don’t believe me? Duck Duck Go the terms ‘FBI’ and ‘school board.’ Tonight, they’re going to scream their lies loudly and often with much Hollywood drama. They hope you will buy it as truth. Do not be deceived. Let me be 100 percent crystal clear. I’m in maximum security jail because the FBI and Department of Justice know I know the truth.

They are denying me access to evidence in my case for over eight months now because they fear getting the truth getting to you. You see, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force attempted to get me to be part of their fraud. But I turned them down. But I recorded them. And after I started exposing them, they had me arrested and planted evidence to keep me held on serious charges.

They have had me locked away for 253 days in hopes of shutting me up. But that will never happen. Because they are sloppy, soon I will be free. Once I’m free, I predict they will manufacture a new reason to lock me away.

Or maybe they will silence me in other ways. But even in death, I have a plan to expose the truth. Tonight you must watch the so called investigative hearing and realize what you’re watching is a farce. In U.S. Army Pathfinder school you learn the saying, know what right looks like. This means when you know what right looks like, wrong pops out at you and becomes painfully obvious. I beg of you learn about my story. I laid out more details in an open letter titled don’t do nothing. Or you can hear the actual recording of the agents recruiting me at JeremyBrownDefense.com.

Listen to my side, a 20 year Special Forces combat vet and compare my account of what happened on January 6, to what you hear and see from these politicians that are responsible for most of the problems in this country and lie to your face for a living. Judge for yourself what rings true to you. God has written the truth on our hearts, so that we know it when we see it or hear it. To defeat their lies, you must know them and understand their intent. If you’re if you’ve never heard my story, maybe you should be wondering why.

I’m running for office from jail no to win, but I am running to warn.

Tonight, gather your family and friends and watch what is going on. But before it starts, open your Bible to Psalms 34 and 35. And see what God proclaims will be the fate of these liars. Then watch with a discerning eye and listen closely to their words. Ask yourself tough questions and then seek the truth on your own. Once you find the truth, don’t do nothing. Because today, America needs us to be Americans. Today, it’s time for Patriots, not politicians, warriors, not wimps, leaders, not leeches, champions, not cowards. It is time for Winter Soldiers to defend our republic, not sunshine patriots who profit from its destruction.

Evil tells you who they are, and we must believe them.

My name is Jeremy Brown inmate 1875858, and this is my warning to America.

God bless you, your families and the truth seekers. May God hear our prayers and cries for liberty and justice to be restored.

De Oppresso liber [Free the Oppressed]— liberty or death.

To learn more visit: JeremyBrownDefense.com

ABOUT JEREMY BROWN

Family Man

I am a Retired Special Forced Combat Veteran and American who was born in Kentucky to a single Mom, raised in North Carolina by my World War II Veteran Grandfather, stationed across the country, deployed around the world and retired here in Tampa. I am a product of the American Dream.

My military awards and decorations pale in comparison to my greatest accomplishment and reward: my five intelligent, talented, and caring daughters. Since retirement I built a small business and a wonderful new life in Tampa with my girlfriend and partner of over eight years. It is my love for my family, the Tampa Bay community, Florida, and America that motivates me to continue the fight for the promises of our Forefathers: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Distinguished Military Career

I’ve served my community and country my entire life, from being a Volunteer Firefighter and EMT to a twenty-year military career serving in the US Army’s Elite Special Operations Community with the 1st Ranger Battalion, three different Special Forces Groups (1st, 7th, & 5th) and Special Operations Command-Central (SOCCENT). I’ve served in seventeen countries on five of the seven continents including numerous combat tours in Afghanistan, Iraq, and “non-declared” combat environments and been awarded 2 Bronze Stars.

©Jeremy Brown, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army Special Forces (Ret.). All rights reserved.

‘They Know Its Murder’: Ashli Babbitt’s Husband Calls Out Jan 6 Committee For Not Mentioning His Wife’s Death

The husband of Ashli Babbitt, Aaron, called out the Jan. 6 committee Friday for not mentioning his late wife’s name at Thursday’s hearings.

Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, died after a police officer shot her in the left shoulder and neck after she attempted to crawl through a barricaded section of the Capitol outside the Speaker’s lobby. The officer was later identified as Lt. Michael Byrd in an NBC interview with Lester Holt in August, 2021.

Aaron told Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson that Republican Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the committee, publicly donated $200 to Byrd. He then said members of the committee refused to answer former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he asked if Babbitt would be discussed at the hearings.

“I truly believe in my heart that they know it’s murder,” he said. “They can’t admit to it, so they have to just bypass it and blow by it and just act like it never happened.”

The committee hearings were held Thursday and aired live on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. Members of the committee played surveillance footage, audio and clips of interviews conducted with government and former Trump administration officials.

Carlson asked if Kinzinger or Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham called him to express their condolences over his wife’s death.

“No, I’ve never received a call from anybody from Congress. We do have members of Congress that are openly helping us and championing us, but I have not received any phone calls regarding the death of my wife other than Jan. 6, Darrell Issa called me that night,” Babbitt said.

Carlson pointed to evidence finding that Babbitt did not pose a threat and attempted to prevent others from threatening officers and others inside the Capitol building. Aaron said his wife pleaded with rioters to stop and diffuse the situation.

“It appears to me that way,” Babbitt replied. “Everybody was caught up in the emotion and energy that day, but I know my wife and I could see the change in her demeanor once things started getting hectic at those doors, once she started — what we now know are bad actors — breaking down those doors and breaking down those windows, I specifically hear her and I urge everybody to listen to it. She’s yelling at them to stop. ‘No, don’t. Wait.’ And I could see the agitation on her. The police moved and it turned chaotic and [it’s] very confusing for somebody that was not there causing violence.”

Aaron was not present at the Capitol riot and had previously told local news outlet Fox 5 Washington D.C. that his wife was a supporter of former President Donald Trump. He filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act demanding to obtain footage documents and witness testimonies of the incident and to identify the officer who shot her in June 2021.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio.

RELATED VIDEO: Jan.6 political prisoner speaks out as hearings begin

RELATED ARTICLES:

History Tells Us That What Happened on January 6th Was Not an Insurrection

Ashli Babbitt’s Husband And Lawyer Speak Out On Lawsuit To Identify Capitol Police Officer Who Shot Her

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

Bill Maher Rips Hollywood For Promoting The ‘Romanticization Of Gun Violence’

Bill Maher thinks Hollywood is partially responsible for gun violence in America.

Following multiple horrific mass shootings in America, people have been debating and trying to figure out ways to solve the issue. Maher thinks Hollywood should take a hard look in the mirror.

“It’s funny. Hollywood is the wokest place on Earth, and every other area of social responsibility. They have intimacy coordinators on set to chaperone sex scenes. They hire sensitivity readers to go through and read scripts. Disney stood up to the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Another studio spent $10 million to digitally remove Kevin Spacey from a movie. But when it comes to the unbridled romanticization of gun violence, crickets,” Maher said during the Friday night episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

You can listen to his full comments below.

Honestly, I understand what Maher is saying, but I hate blaming movies and video games for gun violence. Personally, it seems like a cop out and an easy excuse to blame.

Think about how many people watch violent movies and play violent video games every year. It’s probably a number that is borderline impossible to calculate.

Yet, we don’t see massacres every single day. If violent movies were truly the motivating factor, we’d probably see a lot more violence than we do. That’s just my humble opinion, but that is how I see it.

Now, is Hollywood full of massive hypocrites on guns? Without a doubt. They want to disarm you while promoting guns in movies in order to get rich.

It’s beyond sickening, but that’s a bit of a different point than what Maher was making.

Let us know in the comments if you think Hollywood’s “romanticization of gun violence” is a problem or not.

AUTHOR

DAVID HOOKSTEAD

Sports and entertainment editor. Follow David Hookstead on Twitter and Instagram

RELATED ARTICLES:

Churches and Pro-Life Orgs Have Been Attacked 41 Times in the Last 40 Days

44% of Young Male and 32% of Young Female Democrats Say ‘It’s Acceptable To Assassinate a Politician’

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

HOSTETTLER: Joe Biden Is Misusing The Defense Production Act To Cover Up His Own Policy Failures

Editor’s note: We endeavor to bring you the top voices on current events representing a range of perspectives. Below is a column arguing that President Joe Biden has misused the Defense Production Act. You can find a counterpoint here, where Charles Kolb argues that Biden’s usage of the act is in line with what other presidents have done.


Here’s a crash course on the Defense Production Act (DPA) for the current commander-in-chief — who, evidently, has never familiarized himself with the national defense infrastructure of the United States. F-22s don’t achieve supercruise speeds with batteries. Marines aren’t issued baby formula in their MREs. And Nimitz-class aircraft carriers don’t rip through the waves at 30 knots powered by solar panels.

So why is the president trying to use a statute enacted to hastily convert non-lethal industry capacity to meet the military and naval demands of the Korean War — and then renewed multiple times to meet similar national defense purposes — for obviously non-defense production? The answer is simple: partisan politics.

First is the most obvious attempt to slow the ongoing electoral slide that the president’s party is experiencing going into the midterm elections: reversing the baby formula shortage. But this shortage was the result of what appears to be a dysfunctional Biden administration regulator.

According to press accounts, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, powdered baby formula plant a passing inspection in September 2021 after no evidence of harmful bacteria was uncovered. Subsequently, it was discovered that four infants were fed Abbott’s baby formula and fell ill to infection from a rare bacteria. Tragically, two of those babies died. As a result, Abbott recalled several lots of the powder in February 2022, the FDA returned for another investigation, and Abbott was ordered to shut down operations at the plant. However, bacteria samples acquired as result of this inspection did not match the strains found in samples received from two of the sick infants.

So was the prolonged shutdown of the plant necessary? Was the earlier September 2021 inspection conducted properly? We don’t know the answers to these questions — and likely never will. But like bodies falling from an ascending C-17 fleeing Kabul airport, this is another debacle which the Biden administration and its media allies seem to feel doesn’t warrant further scrutiny.

To further obfuscate all of this, we have the Defense Production Act. But the DPA doesn’t provide for the manufacture of baby formula. And no language in the Act can be construed — even in a tortured sense — to suggest it does. However, the Act does give authority to a president to intercede in production processes conducted by non-government organizations.

So does this mean that future presidents will operate under the precedent that any mishandling of a politically sensitive issue by some arm of a bona fide incompetent administration will find its solution in the DPA? Or will this precedent only be exercised in the specific instance of the most recent in a string of policy blunders that portend the imminent demise of a Congressional majority of the commander-in-chief’s party?

Speaking of the reliance of the DPA to make up for political malpractice, President Biden drew from a similar precedent when he invoked the Act to tip the energy policy scales in favor of one of the darlings of the neo-pantheists — solar power. The president invoked the DPA to increase production of solar panels used relatively little by warfighters who overwhelmingly rely on energy-dense sources such as diesel and jet fuel as well as nuclear power. He did this because he failed to garner sufficient congressional support for his so-called “Build Back Better” agenda, which had billions in federal incentives to prop up the solar energy industry. Lest you think this is somehow a revelation understood only by those invited to sit in dimly lit and smoke-filled rooms, The Atlantic has a recent piece titled “Biden’s Climate Goals Rest on a 71-Year-Old Defense Law” with the prefatory statement, “The Defense Production Act has become an important tool as the White House’s climate policy has stalled in Congress.”

The precedent President Biden drew from to assist the solar industry progeny of the scandal-ridden Solyndra years of the Obama-Biden administration was his earlier invocation of the DPA to aid the battery industry. Batteries, like solar panels, have their place on the battlefield. But that place is relatively limited, and those applications receive attention every year during Congress’ deliberation on and reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act.

It may be that if this administration continues to entangle the United States in a war between two former Soviet socialist republics, he may be forced to legitimately invoke the DPA. But doing so only for the transparently parochial benefit of his partisans diminishes his office and the genuine national security concerns of the United States.

AUTHOR

JOH HOSTETTLER

John Hostettler is Vice President of Federal Affairs, States Trust at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He previously served six terms in the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007 where he was a member of the National Security and later the Armed Services Committees during his entire tenure.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Biden Official Who Got Inflation Dead Wrong Says America Won’t See Recession

Are Mexican Authorities Actually Trying To Stop Illegal Immigration At Southern Border?

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

Company Contrast: Backyard Burgers and Checkers & Rally’s

Each week 2ndVote takes a look at popular companies that either score well or score poorly  and then try to provide alternatives that either better align with the 2ndVote values or should be avoided to the best of your ability. This series is called The Company Contrast, and the companies we will be focusing on this week are Backyard Burgers (3.00) and Checkers & Rally’s (3.00).

For all the hungry 2ndVote shoppers looking for a good ol’ fashioned burger joint, look no further than Checkers & Rally’s. Still sporting their classic mid-century drive-in style, Checkers and Rally’s have been around since 1986 and 1985, respectively, as separate entities, but merged in 1999 to form the current namesake. Their neutral score of 3.00 means that the food will only taste even better without a bunch of leftist activism soiling the flavor and your wallet. Another neutral option is Backyard Burgers, which, having been named one of America’s favorite brands by Newsweek, fancies itself as a slightly more high-end alternative to many other fast-food burger restaurants. Fortunately for consumers, their neutral score of 3.00 makes for a guilt-free experience for those that want to align their dollars with their values.

Of the many mainstream fast-food eateries, one chain to avoid is Burger King (2.35). With a parent company like Restaurant Brands International, Burger King suffers on the issues of Life, Basic Freedoms, and Environment for their association with organizations that support Planned Parenthood, their high ranking on the HRC Corporate Equality Index, and partnerships with organizations that push alarmist environmental agendas. But that shouldn’t stop you from reaching out to them through the 2ndVote website to communicate your distaste of their liberal-leaning activism!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ADAMS: The Evidence Is Real — Dead People Are Voting

The 2020 election was full of chaos and irregularities. States like Georgia and Pennsylvania took days to finalize election results. Mail ballots were found on floors of apartment floor lobbies. Dead people were even voting in states across the county!

Unfortunately, people have been voting from beyond the grave since well before 2020.

The left claims that voter fraud is non-existent, and that dead people are not voting. But, we have proof that deceased individuals are casting ballots.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s database of the country’s voter rolls found nearly 350,000 deceased registrants before the 2020 election. The inevitable question is always well did any of them vote. Unfortunately, some always do.

The Foundation is even beginning to see people being registered after their death. Yes, you read that right. People are registering deceased individuals to vote.

One such individual the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncovered was Judith Presto. Presto voted in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. She died in 2013. Closer examination of our data revealed her husband registered and voted for her following her death.

We turned this information in to Pennsylvania authorities, which led to the ultimate arrest of her husband.

My organization sued Pennsylvania to remove the over 20,000 deceased registrants from the Commonwealth’s voter rolls. In one of the few victories for election integrity in 2020, we won the case. Pennsylvania has removed the deceased registrants from their voter rolls. It is now a lot harder to vote from beyond the grave in Pennsylvania.

There is still work to be done to stop the dead from voting in other states.

For instance, Michigan has over 25,000 deceased registrants still on its voter rolls, according to the Foundation. Nearly 4,000 of these registrants have been dead for at least two decades. We are suing them just like we did Pennsylvania.

Another state with an upcoming Senate race in 2022, North Carolina, also has a high number of deceased individuals on their voter rolls, we found. The state has nearly 8,000 deceased registrants still on the voter rolls.

To stop the dead from voting, secretary of States across the country need to do their job. This is about good government. Election officials need to keep the voter rolls clean and up to date. This would easily solve the problem of dead people voting.

When individuals die, they must be promptly removed from the voter rolls as required by federal law. There is no excuse for allowing deceased registrants to remain on the voter rolls.

We can all agree that we don’t want the ghosts of the dead casting deciding ballots in our elections.

All 50 states need to take a serious look at their voter rolls and make serious efforts to remove all the deceased individuals before the 2022 elections. They are running out of time. It will be Election Day before you know it.

Christian Adams is the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a former Justice Department attorney and the current commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

SNEAD: 2020’s Nightmare Election Process Has Come Back To Haunt Pennsylvania. Here’s What Needs To Change

Disinformation Panels, Corrupt FBI Activity, Govt Control over Speech in Social Media, The J6 Propaganda Effort, it is One Long Continuum

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

85% of Top Economists Reject Elizabeth Warren’s Latest Foolish Proposal, New Survey Finds

Here’s hoping policymakers in Washington heed these warnings.


Senator Elizabeth Warren made a name for herself in 2020 as the progressive Democrat who “has a plan” for everything. But her plans are often not very well thought through, and the Massachusetts Senator’s latest “price-gouging” initiative is a similarly bad idea.

Warren is one of the many progressive politicians who has pushed the bogus narrative that “corporate greed” is to blame for our ongoing surge in inflation. (As I explain here, this isn’t the case). In response, she proposed an anti-“price-gouging” law that would outlaw “unconscionably excessive price increases” at large companies “during all abnormal market disruptions.”

What’s an “unconscionable excessive” price increase? What constitutes an “abnormal market disruption?” And how could federal bureaucrats huddled in an office in Washington, DC possibly make these determinations for all the different industries in America and the literal millions of factors that influence market prices?

Warren’s legislation offers no satisfying answers to these simple questions, which may be why an overwhelming majority of prominent economists just rejected a very similar concept out of hand.

IGM Chicago recently surveyed a group of top economists, including many from the Ivy League, and asked them whether “it would serve the US economy well to make it unlawful for companies with revenues over $1 billion to offer goods or services for sale at an ‘unconscionably excessive price’ during an exceptional market shock.”

(Notice the language is very similar to Warren’s proposal).

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CHART ON WHAT ECONMISTS THINK

Weighted for confidence, an astounding 84 percent disagreed with the notion that such a plan would be good for the economy. As anyone who has spent time around economists can tell you, they’re a fickle bunch with a wide range of ideological influences, so this kind of consensus on an issue is quite unusual.

The specific feedback individual economists offered was also illuminating.

“This just seems unenforceable at every level,” said MIT economist David Autor. “What is unconscionable? Why only companies above $1 [billion]?”

“Totally impractical!” responded Stanford’s Robert Hall.

In my personal favorite, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, who previously served under President Obama, simply responded, “How are we back on this again?”

Of course, appealing to expertise alone is not much of an argument. We also need to understand why economists so resoundingly rejected this proposal and why banning “price gouging” runs afoul of basic economic principles.

Well, high prices, even—no, especially—during times of crisis, actually serve several important economic functions.

As I’ve previously explained:

“When resources are scarce and demand is outstripping supply, companies naturally raise prices. This encourages those who don’t truly need the resource or have an easy alternative not to buy it all up, reserving the resources for those who need them the most.

Think of gas prices, for example. When we’re experiencing serious fuel shortages — like we are right now — gas prices might rise as high as $4. With prices that high, people who could bike to work but prefer to drive might still bike to save money. But those who have to drive to work and have no other option will pay the higher price. This is an imperfect mechanism, to be sure, but it’s still one that mostly ensures the scarce fuel ends up with those who need it most.

Yet if ‘anti-price-gouging’ laws keep the price set at $2 because $4 is deemed ‘unconscionably excessive,’ gas stations will quickly run out of it. Who gets it versus who doesn’t will simply be a matter of chance.

What’s more, high prices during periods of high demand for a product are the force that attracts more businesses to come in and provide more of the good or service, which eventually alleviates the shortage and lowers the price again over time. But if the price is kept capped low, there’s no market force naturally bringing in more investment to boost the supply to keep up with increased demand.”

So, it’s not just experts telling us that anti-“price-gouging” laws are such a bad idea—basic economists and common sense alike confirm this reality.

Here’s hoping policymakers in Washington heed these warnings. If they don’t, everyday Americans will suffer the economic consequences.

WATCH:

AUTHOR

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Economic Degrowth Is Terrible for Everyone—Especially the Poor

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

5 Reasons America’s Birthrate Is Plummeting

The simple truth is, there are fewer people who want to bring kids into the world. Though the reasons are diverse, 44 percent of non-parents between 18 to 49 say it is not to or not at all likely they will procreate.


Elon Musk recently tweeted, “population collapse is the biggest threat to civilization.”

The tweet included a link to an interview Musk gave where he expanded on the subject. “Assuming there’s a benevolent future with AI, I think the biggest problem the world will face in 20 years is population collapse,” Musk wrote. “Collapse. I want to emphasize this….Not explosion, collapse.”

Musk has been known to raise this concern in the past too. Last year he told the Wall Street Journal, “I can’t emphasize this enough, there are not enough people.” He also said that low and rapidly declining birth rates are “one of the biggest risks to civilization.”

That the wealthiest and arguably one of the smartest men on earth spends his days fixating on this issue should be a signal to others that things might be more dire than they think.

According to the US Census, “The US population grew at a slower rate in 2021 than in any other year since the founding of the nation.” And we’re not alone. According to reporting by the BBC, “Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 – and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.”

Population replacement rates are important for a society to sustain itself. We need people to be born so that there are workers to fill the various needs of the whole. Old men cannot do the labor young men can do, young adults are needed to care for the dying and aging. Fewer people means less economic activity, smaller GDPs, less innovation, and less competition.

It also means we have less division of labor. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.“ That means people are less able to specialize and lean into their preferences or areas of expertise in their work.

As a whole, the machine slows and then stagnates when new firewood is not added to the furnace.

But while Elon Musk is absolutely correct about the problem and the potential threat it poses to society, he has not addressed (as far as I’ve seen) the underlying issues creating it or discussed how they might be solved.

So, in an effort to address these issues, here are five reasons people are increasingly choosing not to procreate, along with the free-market responses that could address them.

The simple fact is, some people don’t want children. And there are legitimate reasons for that choice.

No matter what Sheryl Sandberg wants you to believe, women cannot have it all. “Leaning in” is a practice that has left most women who attempt it barrelled over in pain.

The reality is, while women tend to work outside the home in most partnerships now, the vast majority of childcare and household work continues to be laid at their feet. This is an ongoing issue that causes many women to choose not to have kids or not to have more kids.

In life, just as in economics, there are trade-offs. Most women realize they will likely not be able to be a successful career woman, a dedicated mother, and a jaw-dropping homemaker all at the same time. There are choices to be made here, and some women are simply deciding that motherhood is the role they can let go.

It’s important to point out that these are choices that used to be harder to make. In generations past, women were shamed for not having kids, ostracized in society, or simply did not have the access to birth control they needed to determine their own pathway. We’re moving away from that kind of culture, and the advancements in women’s healthcare have empowered women to set their own course.

As a woman who has never wanted children, I’ve thought deeply about this topic. And I believe there are many others who are looking at the same factors I am and reaching the same conclusion.

Motherhood is hard, physically, emotionally, and mentally. I personally never wanted to go through the pain of childbirth, nor do I want to give myself the mental and emotional anxiety that comes with taking on this role. But as pointed out above, this wasn’t always a calculation afforded to women.

Furthermore, I love working—always have. And I’ve built a meaningful and impactful career I’d never be willing to give up. While some women choose to work and have kids, that’s not a situation I’d choose for myself. I’d never put my kids in government schools nor would I want them to spend their time with others in daycare. So when faced with the choice of pursuing my work or raising kids, I simply choose the former. It’s where I want to spend my time. I’ve met many others who feel the same way as me.

There are other factors as well. While the world has actually been improving (though you wouldn’t know it based on the media), there are many people (myself included) who look around and still don’t find the world to be one they’d want to bring kids into.

Thanks to birth control and the gains made under feminism, these are choices women now get to make that other generations simply were not afforded. As a whole, this is a choice that should be accepted and even celebrated by society.

Are there free market solutions to these factors? Sure. School choice would make it easier for women to homeschool or find other alternatives. Remote work would allow more people to balance child-rearing with their careers. And improvements in our social climate would likely make people more optimistic about procreating.

Still, the simple truth is, there are fewer people who want to bring kids into the world. Though the reasons are diverse, 44 percent of non-parents between 18 to 49 say it is not to or not at all likely they will procreate. And that’s ok. But for those who do want kids, we should strive to create a world where that option is as feasible as possible.

While some women and men are simply choosing not to have kids, others wish to and cannot find adequate partners.

It’s important to remember that we are still merely a few decades into a new normal: the sexes having equal rights and a fair playing field.

While this is long-overdue progress that should obviously be celebrated, it also means the social fabric of our society is still fraught with landmines. For all of human history, women and men have not been in a situation where they were equal under the law.

That means culturally and biologically women are programmed to look for partners who are stronger and wealthier than they are, because those elements were essential for survival for most of our existence. But in recent decades, women are largely surpassing men economically. They are more likely to obtain degrees, are catching up to men in their earnings, and in 37 percent of US households, women pay the bills.

To this, many will say women should just lower their standards or not be so picky. But it’s not that simple. Again, to do that requires overcoming significant evolutionary impulses on the part of women. And even when they do overcome these factors, it still isn’t working out. In fact, marriages with female breadwinners are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce. This illustrates that the power dynamic shift created between higher earning women and lower earning men is one our society has not yet learned to live with.

Furthermore, while men say they are fine with dating women who are smarter than them, psychological studies have revealed otherwise. Men are also biologically inclined to be providers and to be competitive. But for the first time in history, they’re having to compete with women, and outcome wise, they’re often ending up in second place. It turns out they don’t find this so appealing in practice.

The fact that LDS and evangelical families are still having more children backs all of this up. Since gender norms are changing more slowly in these communities, it would seem their relationships are not suffering the same growing pains and therefore the number of children they are having is falling more slowly.

These are societal problems, not ones suited for public policy. And the harsh reality is that it will probably take decades for us to sort out this new landscape for romantic relationships and for people to evolve past the male provider/female nurturer gender stereotypes. But they are challenges worth examining and overcoming, and at an individual level, we can all look for ways to foster romantic relationships that take these factors into consideration.

Even for people who do want to have kids and manage to find the right partner, there are still a multitude of landmines they must overcome before they can comfortably procreate, and they all trace back to affordability.

A flourishing society would naturally incentivize people to procreate. But that requires a steady currency, good job market, relatively safe communities, the promise of a good education, and economic factors that make it affordable to have and raise a child.

According to Merrill Lynch, it currently costs $230,000 to raise a kid to age 18. That’s a jaw-dropping amount, especially when one considers record-breaking inflation, wage stagnation, and economic uncertainty created by the reckless printing and spending policies of the US government.

The reasons for these high costs also trace back to the government. Childcare costs have been soaring for decades thanks to extreme government regulations and restrictions on these services. In one survey, 85 percent of parents reported spending 10 percent or more of their household income on child care.

Education is another major financial calculation in these decisions. There’s no way to sugarcoat it, government schools are atrocious and private schooling or alternative options can be expensive or unfeasible. Many parents are also hesitant to place their kids in government schools because of gun-free zones that make them sitting ducks.

And then there’s college. The price of higher education is astronomical, and that is solely due to government subsidies and loans. But while evidence increasingly shows college is not a good investment for most, many parents still desire to give their kids every opportunity they can and thus factor this in.

Additionally, healthcare costs continue to rise in the country thanks to the government increasingly taking over our system. Insurance prices shot up after Obamacare and there is no end in sight for many.

Finally, there are the costs of infertility. A growing number of Americans are having trouble getting pregnant when they want to. Some blame this on problems with our nutrition. Others say it’s because people are having kids later in life. Likely there are multiple reasons. But whatever the cause, fertility assistance is extremely expensive and a cost many cannot afford.

Relatedly, many economists point to the quantity-quality tradeoff theory which implies that a reduction in fertility would lead to more human capital investment per child. Meaning, people would rather invest their love, finances, and attention into a smaller number of children versus spreading it across a large family.

There are many public policy reforms that would bring these costs down. But for the time-being it is understandable why for some the math is simply not adding up. People want to know they can give their kids a brighter and better future than they themselves had, and for now, that simply isn’t true for a lot of people.

Finally, many economists point to something called the demographic transition theory to explain the decrease in childbirth. In short, because child mortality rates have dropped so precipitously under capitalism people don’t have to have as many kids.

In generations past, as terrible as it was, parents would have a lot of kids with the assumption that several would die. That is no longer the case. People can plan how many children they want to have with a high level of certainty that those kids will live into adulthood.

Furthermore, as societies have become less male-centric, parents don’t have to keep having kids until they have a boy. For inheritance, property, and societal reasons, this used to be a goal for many people, but it is one that is quickly diminishing.

Many of these are issues we as a society can address through free-market solutions. It’s time we have that conversation.

AUTHOR

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence

“You may remember, the last time we did something serious about guns was when I passed the Assault Opens [sic] Ban, I was the guy that sponsored that, got it passed, limiting a number of bullets that could be in a magazine, the whole background checks, a whole range of things. And we passed and violent crime and gun crime dropped off, but I could only get it pass for 10 years, it had to be reauthorized.” – Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. on Jimmy Kimmel Live June 8th, 2022


Other studies, including two published in 2020, reached similar conclusions.


Do something.

This is a response—and perhaps a natural one—to a human tragedy or crisis. We saw this response in the wake of 9-11. We saw it during the Covid-19 pandemic. And we’re seeing it again following three mass shootings—in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa Oklahoma—that claimed the lives of more than 30 innocent people, including small children.

In this case, the “something” is gun control. In Canada—where no attack even occurred—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the introduction of legislation that would freeze handgun ownership across the country.

“What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said in a press conference.

In the United States, the rhetoric has tended to be more heated but also vague, though some specific proposals have emerged.

Over the weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris called for an all-out ban of “assault weapons.”

“We know what works on this. It includes, let’s have an assault weapons ban,” Harris told reporters in Buffalo after attending the funeral of a victim.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden, while speaking from the White House Cross Hall before a candlelit backdrop, called on Congress to pass new gun control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked.

There are numerous problems with this proposal, starting with the sticky question of defining what an “assault weapon” is.

Assault rifles, which by definition are capable of selective fire, are already banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The vague phrase “assault weapon” is basically a tautology—by definition, any weapon can be used to assault someone—and virtually useless. The term might be effective politically, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the guns politicians choose to define as “assault weapons” typically “are no more dangerous than others that are not specified.”

We know this because the US had a ban on “assault weapons” as recently as 2004, something gun control supporters recently pointed out on Twitter.

“We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years: 1994-2004,” said Dr. Joanne Freeman, a historian at Yale University. “The world didn’t end. People kept their (other) guns. They bought new guns. It was hardly an attack on gun ownership.”

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 targeted firearms deemed “useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense.”

Freeman is right that the ban lasted a decade before expiring on September 13, 2004. She’s also right that the world “didn’t end” and Americans continued to use and purchase other types of firearms.

What Freeman didn’t bring up was the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the government’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Nearly two decades ago the Department of Justice funded a study to analyze this very topic, and it concluded that the assault weapon prohibition had “mixed” results.

Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

In other words, there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned.

While gun violence overall fell in the US during this period—just like many other countries around the world—the decline continued even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004. Authors of the government-funded study plainly stated “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely “to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

One might contend that this is just one study. No study is irrefutable, after all, even ones commissioned by the Justice Department. However, other studies since then have yielded similar conclusions.

A RAND review of gun control studies, which was updated in 2020, concluded there’s “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.” Research published in Criminology & Public Policy the same year (2020) concluded that bans on assault weapons “do not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

President Biden has claimed the 1994 crime bill he helped pass “brought down these mass killings,” but fact checkers have contested these claims based on this evidence and much more.

It’s unlikely the White House has enough votes to pass a second ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, but it’s far from impossible in an environment in which many Americans—even gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters—are increasingly asking politicians to “do something.”

Unfortunately, when people say “do something” they tend to mean “pass sweeping legislation that infringes on the civil liberties of others.” Such thinking spawned the super-state that sprang forth in the War on Terror following the 9-11 attacks. It also produced government lockdowns during the pandemic, the worst and longest depression in American history, and a host of other disasters.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the impulse to use collective force to “do something” in the wake of a tragedy or crisis has created far more problems than it has solved.

The economic historian Robert Higgs has noted that the most sprawling encroachments of freedom in history spawned during crises and tragedies; they have given rise to tyrants from Lenin to Mao and beyond. Even when powers are relinquished by government, they are rarely relinquished completely (a phenomenon Higgs describes as the Ratchet Effect).

“When [crises occur] … governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs,” wrote Higgs. “For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society, the prospect is deeply disheartening.”

As we mourn the victims in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa, we’d do well to remember that one true moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and any attempt to deprive humans of these rights for “a greater good” is a perversion of the law.

AUTHOR

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.

History Tells Us That What Happened on January 6th Was Not an Insurrection

This column is dedicated to U.S. Air Force veteran 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland of Kennesaw, Georgia, 55-year-old Kevin Greeson of Athens, Alabama, and 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips of Ringtown, Pennsylvania all who were killed in the Capital building in Washington, D.C on January 6th, 2021. May God be with their families.


UPDATE: ‘Agent Provocateur’ Tactics Seen at Jan 6 US Capitol Protest—Interview With Michael Yon | Crossroads


Background on Attacks on the U.S. Capital Building

The History Channel lists the following attacks on the U.S. Capital building from 1954 to today:

  • On March 1, 1954, four Puerto Rican Americans fired guns in the House of Representatives, injuring five congressmen. The attackers said they acted to demand independence for the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. (Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship but can’t vote for president and have no voting representatives in Congress.) The injured congressmen survived, and the four shooters received prison sentences. President Jimmy Carter commuted one of their sentences in 1977, and granted clemency to the other three in 1979.
  • On March 1, 1971, a bomb exploded in the Capitol building. While the explosion did not injure anyone, it caused some $300,000 in damage. A group calling itself the Weather Underground claimed to be behind the bombing and said it was in protest of the ongoing U.S.-supported bombing of Laos.
  • Thirteen years later, on November 7, 1983, a bomb tore through the second floor of the Senate wing of the Capitol. The device detonated late in the evening and no one was harmed, but it caused an estimated $250,000 in damage. A group calling itself the Armed Resistance Unit later claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in retaliation for military actions in Grenada and Lebanon. Seven people were eventually arrested in connection with the attack.
  • A 1998 fatal shooting of two Capitol Police officers in 1998 by a man who claimed the U.S. was plagued by cannibalism and a fictional disease.

On January 6th there was no armed assault of the Capital, there were no bombs or bombings of the capital, there were no Capital Police injured by members of the Save America March. There was no plan to storm the Capital, there was no organization that came forward taking responsibility for what happened and no one came to the rally with the intent to do harm to those in or near the Capital nor those protecting it or members of Congress. There was no intent to overthrow Biden.

In other words it was a peaceful protest.

January 6th, 2021

The History Channel said this about the January 6th Save America Rally, a.k.a. Save America March,

On January 6, 2021, on a day when representatives met to formalize the presidential election results, hundreds of rioters supporting President Donald Trump and seeking to overthrow President-Elect Joe Biden’s electoral victory pushed through police barricades and stormed the Capitol, some smashing windows to enter its halls. A protester who was shot by police, died in the chaos, and more than 100 police were injured.

But is this true? Were these rioters, did they really want to overthrow the election and did they really push thru the Capital police barriers?

What really happened on January 6th, 2021 in Washington, D.C.? There has been much coverage of the rally after the 2020 presidential election. Those in the media, the Democrat Party and their leaders were quick to label it an “insurrection.” The definition of an insurrection is, “a violent uprising against an authority or government.”

WATCH: Never before seen footage of two women killed on January 6th allegedly by police. The Unselect Committee omitted this footage from their presentation during hearings on June 10th, 2022 even though it was shot by their star witness Nick Quested.

The facts show that the only people murdered, arrested and held in prison on and after January 6th were peaceful protestors who were invited into the U.S. capital building by the Capital Police and others. While there was damage done to the Capital building nothing indicates that it was those who attended the rally, nor Trump supporters in general.

Watch: Alan Dershowitz call the Unselect Committee the New McCarthyism:

Since this event we have learned that the 2020 election was the most corrupted election in American history. We have learned that there were people paid to drop off ballots and those ballots were illegal. We have learned, by looking at videos of the events of January 6th what really happened.

WatchThe Truth about the January 6th Documentary‘ published by Gateway Pundit:

THE BOTTOM LINE

We have now witnessed what the agenda truly is. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. on January 6th, 2021 said the following in a speech,

At this hour, our democracy is under unprecedented assault, unlike anything we’ve seen in modern times, an assault the Citadel of Liberty, the Capitol itself, an assault on the people’s representatives and the Capitol Hill Police sworn to protect them, and the public servants who work at the heart of our Republic. An assault on the Rule of Law, like few times we’ve ever seen it.

Since Biden’s speech we have seem Americans targeted just because they attended the rally and, as we said above, four unarmed Americans killed by Capital police officers.

Watch: Daniel Horowitz on how Democrats are “Criminalizing Political Opposition”

Here are some articles that give the true picture of what is happening now to those who peacefully protested and even what is now happening to Supreme Court justices,

Save America Foundation reported:

The leftists understand they have no proof to back up their lies. No policemen were killed by protesters. Understand this America. The Capitol Police Force is a leftist politically run and controlled force that has ZERO credibility. They lie. It was in fact one of their officers who murdered an unarmed, white, military vet female, Ashli Babbitt, by shooting her for no reason. That cop instead of going to prison is a hero to the left. Protocols relating to deadly uses of force were not followed. They hid the name of the officer before he was cleared in a BS internal investigation. Here is his treasonous name: Lt. Michael Byrd, a black officer and coward who should have faced charges as serious as other white officers around the country have faced in other shootings, usually of black males. Those charges should have included First Degree Murder. He premeditatedly pulled his service weapon ( one he had left behind previously in a toilet ) aimed and shot at Ashli, a small lady who was offering no threat of any physical nature to that coward. He pulled the trigger and murdered her. He got a free pass and is, as I said previously, considered a hero among the leftists and extremists in the administration.

[ … ]

When compared to the actions taken against actual riots, arson, battery, assaults, murders, larcenies and looters of real domestic terrorist groups like BLM, ANTIFA, Defund the Police, communist and anarchist and other extremist leftist groups that took place in mostly democrat controlled cities, we see a level of hypocrisy not seen before. There you could kill police officers, destroy cities and buildings, ransack stores and homes, attack innocent people with gay abandon knowing you would not be arrested or charged.

Read more.

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd murdered an unarmed Ashli Babbit and the DOJ doesn’t prosecute him. But Kyle Rittenhouse who is defending local businesses during an actual riot shoots two others, one who was armed, in self-defense and he goes on trial for murder. Is this equal justice under the law?

We now have a two tiered justice system.

If you kill an unarmed American like AF veteran Ashli Babbitt you get off scott free. If you defend yourself against real rioters who are looting and burning down businesses you get tried for murder.

If you attended the January 6th rally you are an insurrectionist. If you threaten Supreme Court Justices you are encouraged to continue harassing these Supreme Court Justices even though it is a Federal crime to protest outside their offices or homes.

What happened in reality on January 6th was a mostly peaceful protest. What is happening today is a purge of those who disagree with Democrats and those who support the U.S. Constitution and law and order.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jan. 6 Committee Hearing Liars EDITED OUT FOOTAGE Last Night of Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland’s Death from FROM KEY WITNESS TESTIMONY!

Churches and Pro-Life Orgs Have Been Attacked 41 Times in the Last 40 Days

Proud Boys Charged with Seditious Conspiracy for Attending the January 6th, 2021 Capitol Rally

Foreword by Fred Brownbill. As many of you understand our jails are filling up with political prisoners whose constitutional rights have been summarily removed by a tyrannical and to me illegal Biden administration and a corrupt politicized DOJ and the disgusting and dirty excuse of a law enforcement agency, the Capitol Police. Friends and acquaintances of mine sit in prisons and jails around this country charged with fictitious and unprovable charges in connection with the January 6th protest outside Congress. Nearly 18 months later they are still holding a dog and pony show trying to take our attention off the disastrous job they are doing as the deliberately destroy our constitutional republic, one right or freedom at a time. America. Wake up. This is not Cuba. This is not China or Venezuela. This is the United States of America. Stand up and tell these traitors enough is enough. This November show them by wiping out the democrats in the mid term elections. It is our last chance to attempt to save this constitutional republic. Do not be found to have come up short or I believe there will be bloodshed.


Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

The former top leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and other members were charged Monday with seditious conspiracy for what federal prosecutors say was a coordinated attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.

The latest indictment against Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the former Proud Boys chairman, and four others linked to the group comes as the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot prepares to begin public hearings this week to lay out its findings.

The indictment alleges that the Proud Boys conspired to forcibly oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power. Tarrio and the others — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — were previously charged with different conspiracy counts.

They are scheduled to stand trial in August in Washington, D.C.’s federal court.

The seditious conspiracy charges are among the most serious filed so far, but aren’t the first of their kind. Eleven members or associates of the anti-government Oath Keepers militia group, including its founder and leader Stewart Rhodes, were indicted in January on seditious conspiracy charges in a serious escalation in the largest investigation in the Justice Department’s history.

Three Oath Keepers have already pleaded guilty to the rarely used Civil War-era charge that calls for up to 20 years in prison. The indictment alleges that the Oath Keepers and their associates prepared in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 as if they were going to war, discussing things like weapons and training.

Tarrio, the group’s top leader, wasn’t in Washington, D.C., when the riot erupted on Jan. 6, 2021, but authorities say he helped put into motion the violence that day.

Police arrested Tarrio in Washington two days before the riot and charged him with vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church during a protest in December 2020. Tarrio was released from jail on Jan. 14 after serving his five-month sentence for that case.

An attorney for Tarrio said his client “is going to have his day in court.”

“And we intend to vigorously represent him through that process,” said Nayib Hassan.

Defense attorney Carmen Hernendez, who represents Rehl, said her client is “as innocent of these charges as the ones that had already been pending against him.”

“Seditious conspiracy requires the use of force, and he never used any force nor thought about using any force,” Hernandez said.

More than three dozen people charged in the Capitol siege have been identified by federal authorities as leaders, members or associates of the Proud Boys, whose members describe it as a politically incorrect men’s club for “Western chauvinists.”

They have brawled with antifascist activists at rallies and protests. Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, who founded the Proud Boys in 2016, sued the Southern Poverty Law Center for labeling it as a hate group.

The indictment alleges that the Proud Boys held meetings and communicated over encrypted messages to plan for the attack in the days leading up to Jan. 6. On the day of the riot, authorities say Proud Boys dismantled metal barricades set up to protect the Capitol and mobilized, directed and led members of the crowd into the building.

Prosecutors have said the Proud Boys arranged for members to communicate using specific frequencies on Baofeng radios. The Chinese-made devices can be programmed for use on hundreds of frequencies, making it difficult for outsiders to eavesdrop.

Shortly before the riot, authorities say Tarrio posted on social media that the group planned to turn out in “record numbers” on Jan. 6, but would be “incognito” instead of donning their traditional clothing colors of black and yellow.

Around the same time, an unnamed person sent Tarrio a document that laid out plans for occupying a few “crucial buildings” in Washington on Jan. 6, including House and Senate office buildings around the Capitol, the indictment says. The nine-page document was entitled “1776 Returns” and called for having as “many people as possible” to “show our politicians We the People are in charge,” according to the indictment.

Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter president and a member of the group’s national “Elders Council.” Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, is a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Rehl was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia. Pezzola is a Proud Boy member from Rochester, New York.

A New York man pleaded guilty in December to storming the U.S. Capitol with fellow Proud Boys members. Matthew Greene was the first Proud Boys member to publicly plead guilty to conspiring with other members to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote. Greene agreed to cooperate with authorities investigating the attack.

Another Proud Boy, Charles Donohoe, of Kernersville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy and assault charges and also agreed to cooperate in the Justice Department’s cases against other members of the extremist group.

In December, a federal judge refused to dismiss an earlier indictment charging alleged leaders of the Proud Boys with conspiring to block the certification of Biden’s electoral college win. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected defense attorneys’ arguments that the men were charged with conduct that is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

44% of Young Male and 32% of Young Female Democrats Say ‘It’s Acceptable To Assassinate a Politician’

The poll was taken in the wake of the Kavanaugh assassination attempt. Hitler youth …which was always the Democrat goal.

Kavanaugh killer’s contents: He was arrested with a suitcase containing a tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles. Apparently he intended to take Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters hostage.

A Disturbing Poll in the Aftermath of the Attempted Assassination of Brett Kavanaugh

By Matt Margolis, PJM,  Jun 09, 2022:

The attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh should have universally shocked Americans. It seems that, out of basic human decency, people should have a real problem with resorting to violence and killing over differences in opinion on public policy, regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on.

Americans come together in the aftermath of tragedies such as mass shootings, natural disasters, and other highly publicized events that leave families shattered. Yet, people apparently have different attitudes about political assassinations.

According to a recently released poll, nearly half of male Democrats under the age of 50 (44 %) say it’s acceptable to assassinate a politician “who is harming the country or our democracy,” the highest percentage of any age/gender/party demographic.

The poll, which was conducted by Tulchin Research for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), also found that nearly a third of younger Democrat women and younger Republican men agreed with the statement, as did 40% of younger Republican women.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the poll is the generational difference. Older men and women of either party are significantly less likely to approve of the assassination of political opponents than their younger counterparts.

Party identification aside, it is clear that the younger generations are not being taught to respect the lives of others, particularly of their political opponents. This is a perilous path, especially when you consider the way the Democratic Party frequently accuses Republicans of being threats to democracy — while demonstrating that the violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was likely more dangerous than we thought.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Mob Terrorize Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett AT HER HOME AND HER CHURCH

Rep trashes Jan 6 Committee for ignoring negligence of Capitol Police, confronts Pelosi with proof they knew

RELATED TWEET:

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

Democrat Mob Terrorize Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett at Her Home and Church

Pro-choice activists march outside home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Protests against Supreme Court Justices have ratcheted up in recent weeks

By Bradford Betz , Lisa Bennatan | Fox News June 9, 2022:

Just one day after an alleged assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a small group of pro-choice activists descended on the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett Thursday evening.

Waving banners and holding up signs, the group walked up and down the sidewalk chanting call-and-response slogans like, “Your neighbor says post-Roe, we say hell no!” and “Hey-hey, ho-ho, the handmaiden has got to go!”
Protesters outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Protesters outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (Fox News)

The tiny rally came a day after protesters marched in front of the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh following the arrest of a California man who had threatened to kill him.

The man, 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske, was carrying a gun, a knife, and zip ties, according to police. Later Wednesday, he was charged with attempted murder of a Supreme Court Justice.

Demonstrations against Supreme Court Justices have ratcheted up in recent weeks in response to a leaked draft opinion suggested that the Supreme Court was on the verge of overturning the landmark 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade.
A group of drummers marched outside of Kavanaugh’s house after an alleged assassination attempt.

A group of drummers marched outside of Kavanaugh’s house after an alleged assassination attempt. (Fox News)

Roske told police he was upset about the draft as well the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas last month, where 21 people – including 19 children were killed. Roske said he believed Kavanaugh would vote to loosen gun control laws, according to a criminal complaint.

A Department of Homeland Security report said the Supreme Court draft opinion has unleashed a wave of threats against officials and others and increased the likelihood of extremist violence.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

POST-KAVANAUGH POLL: Almost Half of Young, Male Democrats Says “It’s Acceptable To ASSASSINATE a Politician”

Biden’s Approval Rating Sinks to below 40% in RCP average

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

FBI Arrests Michigan Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Ryan Kelley Over January 6th Protest Attendance

UPDATE: June 18, 2022 Michigan GOP candidate arrested by FBI sees massive jump to the top of latest poll by Melissa Fine,

It’s an upside-down world when an arrest by the FBI sends a candidate for Governor to the top of the latest popularity poll, but that’s exactly what has happened to Michigan gubernatorial GOP candidate Ryan Kelley, who was hooked up on misdemeanor charges by the Feds on June 9 for his alleged participation in the Jan. 6 events at the Capitol.

Read the full article.


We have lost our country. He wasn’t even in the Capitol building itself (as if that matters). Look out for further indictments of senatorial candidates and elected officials leading up to the election. Not so ironically, this is the insurrection.

FBI arrests GOP Michigan governor candidate Ryan Kelley over Jan. 6 riot

By Callie Patteson, NY post, June 9, 2022:

The FBI arrested Ryan Kelley, a Republican candidate for governor in Michigan, on misdemeanor charges connected to his participation in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol Riot.

Kelley, 40, was arrested after law enforcement raided his Allendale Township home. He will appear in court later Thursday.

His arrest comes the same day as the first primetime hearing held by the House select committee investigating the riot and approximately two months before he is expected to appear on the primary ballot seeking to unseat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

The hearing is expected to feature a mix of in-person witnesses testifying about the events and pre-recorded content, including promises of never-before-seen photos and video from Jan. 6.

While Kelley has not been accused of entering the Capitol building itself on the day of the violent demonstration, court documents feature photos of the Republican on the steps wearing sunglasses and a black baseball cap.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

POST-KAVANAUGH POLL: Almost Half of Young, Male Democrats Says “It’s Acceptable To ASSASSINATE a Politician”

Democrat Mob Terrorize Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett AT HER HOME AND HER CHURCH

Plea Deal of a US ISIS Terrorist Has Benghazi Links

WATCH Biden Touts Economic Success

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

Is all this acceptable?

We hear that we are expected to celebrate Pride week and/or Pride Month. Regardless of our personal beliefs either moral or religious. We are called bigots and homophobes if we don’t. Five brave players from our Tampa Bay Rays refused to wear the Pride flag patch on a Pride celebratory game and have been hated on ever since.

As tax payers we are expected to have our taxes used for flags, bunting and celebrations for Pride and to celebrate their so called achievements. If we disagree we are called bigots and homophobes.

As apparently non-equal citizens our opinions on if our kids are to be taught disgusting sexually based education from age 5 up seems to be ignored by public officials paid with our taxes.

Equally our opinions on drag queens and transgendered persons being allowed to read perverted books to our young children in public funded libraries also are ignored. We are called … you guessed it Bigots and homophobes plus the normal racist!

Our beliefs, our own thoughts are totally irrelevant to the left and the ever increasing aggressively militant LGBTQUI movement. We are not tolerated, even though we are in the majority, and as I mentioned expected to celebrate their lifestyle despite our solidly held beliefs.

There is but one opinion that matters increasingly to the left and their friendly pocket pets, the MSM, and that is the leftist agenda. Dare to differ and even worse differ publicly and verbally and you are cancelled. You lose work, your job, your reputation as they spread lies and disinformation about you, cancel your social media and generally make your life hell.

We are expected to attend Gay Pride parades and celebrations, despite the immoral talk, clothing and actions of the many participants. I mean, do we really have to see scantily dressed men in black chaps and other leather wear or even worse, dressed as God knows what? Do we need to see females that are increasingly trying to look, sound and act more masculine than men?

I HAVE NEWS FOR THEM ALL.

I do not celebrate Gay Pride hour, day, week, month or year.

I do not agree with the destruction they have caused to my beloved military, reducing standards and our battle readiness.

I hate that every show I used to enjoy on TV has become a Gay Fest, with men kissing men, women kissing women and even same sex sexual acts. I am unable to watch much TV anymore and have to carefully screen the shows, taping them first so I can fast forward adverts but also turn it off or fast forward when those actions are about to occur.

I know Gay people. I do not hate them. I like some of them. (By that I mean I don’t like that many people!). What they do behind their closed doors is between them and God. Believe me, one day they will have to answer to Him. It’s not my business.

I do not accept or believe in Gay marriage. I find it offensive and against everything I believe in. God made two sexes to enable breeding. Regardless to what any of these people think they are on any given day, they have X or Y chromosomes. Male or female regardless to what they remove or add to their bodies.

I do believe my opinion is valid. I am always prepared to talk and debate anyone with differing opinions in a friendly fashion but find the left and most in the LGBTQUI community, cannot discuss but only aggressively attack and name call.

I understand the above is my opinion but hey guys, this is my blog! If it is your opinion too then stand up firmly against this evil indoctrination.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.