Trump Holds Biggest Recorded Lead In GOP Caucus Poll’s History

/in , , , , , , , /by

“There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty.” —John Adams (1776)

Democrats rig elections.

Democrats don’t care.

They steal. 

Stolen elections are now common practice (with no recourse for the American people) but it will be fun watching Democrat criminals cheat out in the open, scrambling  to cover Trump’s overwhelming numbers on election night 2024.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Washington, D.C. Removing 103,000 Ineligible Names from the Voter Rolls in Response to Judicial Watch

/in , , , , , , , /by

Washington, D,C. – Judicial Watch announced today that it sent notice letters to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. The letters point out that these jurisdictions publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letters threaten federal lawsuits unless the violations are corrected in a timely fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, DC, officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.”

The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).

Federal law directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to submit a report to Congress every second year assessing how states are complying with the NVRA. Federal regulations require states to provide data to the EAC for use in this report. On June 29, 2023, the EAC posted data from the most recent surveys it sent to the states and the District of Columbia for the reporting period from November 2020 through November 2022.

Based on the data contained in this report, Judicial Watch contacted a number of states and Washington, DC, to inquire about their compliance with federal law and to request public records. After processing the responses to these communications, Judicial Watch sent notice of violation letters to Washington, DC, California, and Illinois, detailing their non-compliance with the NVRA.

The notice letter to the District of Columbia, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch and the District of Columbia Republican Party, reports:

  • DC reported removing zero voter registrations in the last two-year reporting period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote for two consecutive general federal elections.
  • DC flatly admitted in correspondence with Judicial Watch that it was failing to remove registrations as required by the NVRA, citing data conversion, staffing, and other issues.
  • DC’s total registration rate—its total number of registrations divided by the most recent census estimates of its citizen voting-age population—is greater than 131%.

The notice letter to California, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, states:

  • California’s survey responses to the EAC show that 27 California counties reported removing five or fewer—and, in most of those counties, zero—voter registrations in the last two-year period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections.
  • Another 19 California counties simply did not report any data about such removals.
  • Twenty-one California counties had more voter registrations than citizens over the age of 18, based on the most recent census estimates.

In all, 46 California counties reported removing only a handful, or no registrations under the NVRA’s change of address rules, or else failed to report any data at all. These 46 counties contain more than 14 million registered voters.

The notice letter to Illinois, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch, Illinois resident and voter Carol J. Davis, and Illinois Family Action, states:

  • In Illinois’ responses to the EAC’s survey, 23 Illinois counties reported removing fewer than 15—and, in almost half of those counties, zero—voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections.
  • Thirty-four Illinois jurisdictions simply did not report any data about such removals.
  • Fifteen Illinois jurisdictions have more voter registrations than citizens of voting age.

In total, 57 Illinois counties that either reported removing 15 or fewer registrations or failed to report any data at all under the NVRA’s change of address removal procedures. These 57 counties contain over five million registered voters.

Last month, the District of Columbia admitted in correspondence to Judicial Watch that it removed 65,544 inactive voters, will soon remove an additional 37,962 inactive voters, and that it has designated another 73,522 inactive names for potential removal.

California provided some public records and promised a further, substantive response. Illinois provided some public records and promises a further, substantive response. Ultimately, however, if Judicial Watch is not satisfied with the jurisdictions’ responses to its notice letters, Judicial Watch plans to sue under the National Voter Registration Act to ensure the jurisdictions take certain reasonable steps to clean up their voter rolls as the law requires.

“Dirty voter rolls increase the potential for voter fraud,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “As Washington, DC’s, quick cleanup of tens of thousands of names in response to Judicial Watch shows, there are potentially hundreds of thousands of names on the voter rolls that should be removed by California and Illinois. Indeed, Judicial Watch litigation resulted in the removal of four million names from voter rolls in various states recently.”

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

In July 2023 Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, supporting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s voter registration list (Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna Bellows (No. 23-1361). According to a national study conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of eligible voters.

Judicial Watch in July 2023 also settled a federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and its director, which grants access to the current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state for the past 15 elections.

In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled with Judicial Watch and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258 ineligible registrations in response to communications from Judicial Watch. The settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll clean-up efforts for the next five years.

In March 2023, Colorado agreed to settle a Judicial Watch NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch with the most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years.

In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017.

Judicial Watch settled a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists.

Kentucky also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional-districts gerrymander.

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

The Moral Bankruptcy of Higher Education — and the Opportunity it Gives Christians

/in , , , , , , , /by

In a disturbing House hearing this week, the heads of three of America’s most prestigious universities — Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — equivocated on whether calls for the slaughter of the Jewish people are acceptable.

Used to employing the artful dodges of academic jargon, these “educators” did their best to use complex sentence structures and condescending nuance to avoid answering straightforward questions. When asked by U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) — herself a Harvard grad — direct questions about massive student demonstrations condoning violence against Israel and Jews in general, Harvard president Claudine Gay said, “We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful — it’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation.”

Calling for mass murder is not “bullying, harassment, (and) intimidation?” And so it went — the cowardly evasions of the ivory tower flowing from the leaders of some of the reputedly greatest institutions of higher learning in the world. So now, alarmed by the unnerving calm of a group of PhDs defending their students’ “right” to call for slaughter, the University of Pennsylvania’s board of trustees met in an apparent state of panic over Penn president Liz Magill’s refusal to condemn genocide. Magill has now “promised to review the university’s code of conduct after she faced calls to resign for declining to say whether advocating genocide was a violation of the policy.” How reassuring.

For decades, conservatives have been warning that university liberal arts faculties are run by academics who are wandering so far left that were the earth flat they would fall off. Now, we have data to prove this. In a faculty survey published last fall, the Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that “more than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as ‘liberal’ or ‘very liberal.’” Less than 2% characterized themselves as conservative. More broadly, a 2016-2017 study found that 60% of university faculty identified as “left or far left.”

To be clear, being liberal and being anti-Semitic are not synonymous. Rather, it should surprise no one that in environments where young people are taught that Israel is an illegitimate state, that claiming there are moral absolutes is oppressive patriarchal nonsense, and that “heteronormativity” (i.e., the norm of being attracted to the opposite gender) is merely a repulsive social construct that should be crushed, a good number of these young men and women will be swayed.

Post-teenagers are well-known for a proneness to moral indignation. Given that many have had virtually no moral training in the home or churches (just be nice, believe in some kind of deity, and vote Democratic — this is the de facto creed of “mainline” Protestantism) and have not been taught to think carefully and critically in their public schools, it should be unsurprising that when a post-modern professor waxes on about a real or imagined problem, sprinkling his lecture copiously with calls for “justice” and presenting well-culled “facts” to buttress his case, some impressionable youth will fall for his ill-conceived blather.

There is no such thing as values-neutrality. Between Josef Stalin’s celebration of his mass killings (or as he put it, “Who’s going to remember all this riff-raff in 10 or 20 years’ time? No one”) and Jesus’s teaching that we should love our enemies, there is a great gulf fixed. While no one (to my knowledge) stands behind a university lectern actually calling for murder, thousands of my fellow PhDs take their lecture hall podiums and foster theological unbelief, ethical confusion, factual distortion, and logical fallacies day by day, week after week.

So now, as we see major college campuses awash in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, many university donors and political commentators are shocked by what they are hearing. Why? Have they honestly assumed you can void an education of “the laws of nature and of Nature’s God” and produce men and women of character, moral bravery, and sound minds? Or, at least to some, is this the point: raise a generation for whom hopelessness, rage, and confusion confect into pre-revolutionary radicalism?

The very foundation of our country assumes the existence of a personal Creator Who, in His unmerited kindness, has endowed us with the rights He wants us to enjoy. Try asserting the truth of this claim in any secular university liberal arts faculty lounge. The response you receive will be less than pleasant.

There is another issue at play, as well: Cowardice. Saying no to an insistent child is aggravating; saying no to the insistent, demanding, and continuously outraged Left must be exhausting. But it is also needed. Some voices should not be given space to vent their cries of vicious and ignorant rage. Not every opinion deserves an equal hearing, especially if some of those opinions urge genocide. It is pure dishonesty to suggest that there’s a bright line between rhetoric and action. Fostering hatred leads to hateful actions — this is axiomatic. Evidently the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT missed that class in simple moral geometry.

We should not be surprised by the sudden eruption of indignation now rising among rich donors and many in the major media, especially given the general inattention of much of American society to what’s happening all around us. And while we might hope that the current state of astonishment and anger on the part of wealthy donors and assorted cultural elites will force an accounting of what some of America’s most talented youth are learning, don’t bet on it.

When the president of Harvard — founded as a training ground for evangelical pastors — can’t simply say that when students yell for the destruction of Israel that they have gone too far, such a belief would not be an exercise of either faith or hope but pathetic fantasy.

What we can hope in is that the God of the Bible is real. Christ’s victory over sin, death, and Satan has inaugurated a new kingdom that no power on earth can so much as dent, let alone stop. This is the message we need to bring to a generation desperate for something permanent, something that transcends time and contention and pain.

AUTHOR

Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard President Plagiarized Her Dissertation

Harvard Covered Up Secret Plagiarism Probe into President Claudine Gay, THREATENED the NY Post

RELATED VIDEO: America’s Education System Is SEVERELY Broken | On the Ground at U Penn

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Meta Will Censor Adult Detransitioners but Not Pornographic Content for Minors

/in , , , , , , , , /by

In September, detransitioner Chloe Cole, widely known for her testimony about the dangers of transgender operations, was censored on Instagram so that her content would not appear to non-followers in any capacity. As the warning she received stated, “Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations.”

For several years, conservatives have been skeptical of censorship from social media platforms, of which Cole is the most recent victim. In a 2020 Pew Research poll, results showed most Americans share this concern. Out of 4,708 U.S. adults, the survey stated “roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. Just 25% believe this is not likely the case.”

While Republicans remain the most skeptical about social media censorship, other concerns are making their way to court. Investigators in New Mexico filed a lawsuit after they created minor profiles on Facebook and Instagram that were, as the suit stated, “exposed to nudity, pornographic videos, and sexually suggestive images of young girls.” Additionally, as The Epoch Times reported, when the investigators used the fake profiles to report pornographic videos sent to it, Meta “said it investigated and found no violation of its community standards.”

Additionally, “Meta also offered the profile a professional account, which would enable her to make money. Meta would provide information on her audience, which was largely male and adult.” Although, its not just the New Mexico investigators that are showing concern.

A bipartisan letter addressed to Mark Zuckerburg, CEO of Meta, from the United States Senate disclosed “deep concerns about Meta’s apparent failure to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), as alleged in a recently unsealed complaint filed by 33 states against [the] company.” The letter detailed the ways in which “Meta has not even tried to obtain informed parental consent to continue collecting data on those kids — in direct violation of COPPA.”

COPPA is the only online federal privacy law for children, and the states’ complaints emphasized in the letter are based on substantial evidence that Meta has and continues to violate it. The letter concluded, “Meta’s goal here is clear: To do everything in its power to avoid gaining actual knowledge — or, at least, create the perception that it never gained actual knowledge — that a user is a child. In so doing, Meta sought both to continue monetizing that child’s account and establish a lucrative, long-term relationship with them.”

Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, commented to The Washington Stand, “It’s almost beyond imagining that” Meta is not aware of the exploitation of minors occurring on its platforms. He explained how, in the last couple years, Elon Musk has managed to take control of Twitter (now X) and clean up a fair amount of the obscenity that was on the app. As far as Gacek is concerned, if Musk is accomplishing this, Meta could do the same. “They can clean this up if they want to,” he said. “So if it’s there, they want it to be there.”

Gacek noted that part of Meta’s indifference about these accounts and the explicit content is because it’s a “mechanism by which they’re making money.” But there is also “this sort of an ideological contour map,” he added, that can contribute even more to the equation. As Gacek put it, what this investigation seems to navigate is that “Chloe Cole can’t be seen, but the pervs can.”

He concluded, “There [could be] hundreds of millions of people watching” or coming across “this stuff, right? I can’t believe there aren’t more people reporting these things.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Pornhub Reportedly Pushes Gay/Trans Content to Shape Sexualities of Minors | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘It’s “Me Too” Unless You Are a Jew’: Why Won’t Women’s Groups Condemn Hamas’s Rapes?

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Why won’t so-called “women’s groups” condemn Hamas terrorists for raping Israeli women on October 7? This is what a growing number of people are asking, including Former Miss World and Miss Israel 1998, Linor Abargil, who gave a very moving and emotional speech before the United Nations on December 4.

Abargil appeared on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday. She said, “It’s ‘Me Too’ unless you are a Jew.” She observed, “It’s not about political, it’s not about ‘Free Palestine, it’s not about which side you’re on on the map: to use rape as an act of war is unbearable. I mean, what happened to humanity?” She then became very emotional and had to take a moment to compose herself before she shared:

“One of my friends… told me a story about this young woman — that he saw a video of her — she was raped by three Hamas people, one after another raped her. . .Screaming they beat her, spit at her, they then butchered her, and one of them took her cell phone and just send everything to her mother. Her scream just haunts my friend every night he’s tried to sleep. And her screaming should be out there for all the world to shout out for this girl that is not here to shout herself. But instead, all of the organizations are just silent. …I mean, I’m telling you, I’m just speechless.”

In the second hour of Thursday’s program, Dana Perino interviewed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) who also called out the women’s groups that are usually her political allies. They include Emily’s List, Democratic Women’s Caucus, Women’s March, I Stand With Her, and American Association of University Women.

Gillibrand said, “When I saw the list at the U.N., I couldn’t believe it. I was so aghast, I was so furious. I don’t understand how we cannot have solidarity amongst all women in the United States and globally — that using rape as a weapon of war is unacceptable. It has to be condemned. The fact that the U.N. has not called Hamas a terrorist organization and condemn[ed] the horrific violence on October 7 is unacceptable. And they’re not even enforcing international law.”

She went on to say, “I think women’s rights groups in the United States should care deeply about women around the globe and should not turn a blind eye. They should not keep their head in the sand. They have a moral responsibility to have moral clarity…”

Perino asked Gillibrand if she watched the video of the October 7 massacre that the Israeli government provided for Congress to watch. She responded, “I did. It’s unspeakable. The horrific acts that were committed in the most heinous and evil ways you can imagine: beheadings, dismemberments, mass rapes, shooting of babies and children. It’s something that should never, ever happen. And it has to be called out not only by the U.N. but by the world community. … They did not show us the victims of rape, and they did not show us the videos of rapes happening because they thought it was too horrific for Congress to see, but we should see it. And these films and these photographs should be made public because the world has to condemn this…”

Abargil’s and Gillibrand’s emotional pleas stand in stark contrast to the cold words of Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, December 3. When CNN host, Dana Bash, asked her why women’s groups are “downright silent” about Hamas raping and mutilating Jewish women on October 7, Jayapal shockingly downplayed Hamas’s evil acts, continually trying to compare those acts to Israel’s justifiable right to defend itself.

Bash said, “With respect, I was just trying to talk about the women, and you turned it back to Israel. I’m asking you about Hamas…”

Jayapal interrupted, “I already answered your question, Dana, I said it’s horrific. I think that rape is horrific — sexual assault is horrific. I think it’s horrific. I think that it happens in war situations. Terrorist organizations like Hamas obviously are using these as tools. However, I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians…”

Bash pointed out, “And it’s horrible, but you don’t see Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women.” To which Jayapal responded, “Well, Dana, I don’t want this to be the hierarchy of oppressions…”

Although U.N. Women finally condemned Hamas on December 1 (almost two months after the October 7 attack), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still pleading with groups such as the United Nation’s own World Health Organization and women’s groups around the world to be vocal advocates for the many Israeli women and girls that were raped on October 7 (and for the hostages that likely continue to be abused). He said, “I heard heartbreaking stories of abuse. I heard, as you have heard, about sexual abuse and unprecedented cases of cruel rape.”

He then asked, “Did you remain silent because it was Jewish women? … I say to the women’s rights organizations, to the human rights organizations, you’ve heard of the rape of Israeli women, horrible atrocities, sexual mutilation? Where the hell are you? I expect all civilized leaders, governments, nations to speak up against this atrocity.”

Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Education Studies, Meg Kilgannon, is not surprised by women’s groups’ lack of attention to this horrific issue. She told The Washington Stand, “National women’s groups have been part and parcel of the Democratic Party for years. For women who pay attention, we know that these groups will never represent our values or the real interests of women. The example of excusing depraved behaviors of terrorists is just another of many ways the leaders of women’s groups serve the interest of progressive and authoritarian men.”

FRC’s Director of the Center for Human Dignity, Mary Szoch, agreed and added, “The terroristic actions of Hamas are pure evil and should be denounced by everyone — especially those claiming to speak for women. Failure to speak out against members of Hamas raping Jewish women is inexcusable.”

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

RELATED VIDEO: Hostility to Mother Mary – and the Role of Feminism

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Russia’s Resolve: The Family Comes First

/in , , , , /by

A valuable lesson from my days toiling away in the imperial capital was how little Americans know about what is going on in the rest of the world. Back in the heady days of hegemony, the default American setting was ethnocentric. Wherever we went, there was CNN Headline News, American entertainment, tourist menus, guides and cordial concierges ensuring that our language deficit was not an impediment to spending money.

Joe Biden, the guy presently playing president, said America is an “indispensable nation”. Strictly speaking, we haven’t been a nation since the Civil War. We’re not indispensable either, but believing so is indispensable to imperial hubris. I digress.

Year of the Family

On 22 November, American media ran the usual fare that passes for news: the wars du jour, the JFK murder 60th anniversary, and travellers headed home for Thanksgiving.

Across the globe, something momentous was underway. Western media mostly missed it. The event? Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree declaring 2024 the “Year of the Family“.

In order to promote state policy to protect the family and preserve traditional family values, the President has resolved to declare 2024 the Year of the Family in the Russian Federation. 

The Year of the Family initiative was kicked off in early November via a motion by Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko. The mission: “promote state policy in the field of family protection and the preservation of traditional family values.”

The official organising committee will be in place on 27 December, headed by Tatyana Golikova, Deputy Prime Minister for Social Policy, Labour, Health and Pension Provision.

Consider: motion made in early November, decree issued 22 November, implementing committee up and running 27 December. By government standards, that’s moving like greased lightnin’. Guess they remember the glacial pace of things under Communism.

Now, I’m an America first guy, but when countries with fewer resources get things done faster and better, there’s no shame in following their example.

Socially conservative

The custom of dedicating each year to a national cause was inaugurated in 2007 to focus attention on Russian priorities. This is part and parcel of President Putin’s nationalistic approach, designed to conflate patriotism with problem-solving. To a surprising degree, it works. However, President Putin deserves only partial credit. US/NATO sanctions have done more to rally Russians behind him than any big bucks PR campaign or “Ukraine liberation” ever could.

Much has been happening in Russia of late that would be of keen interest to Americans. By US standards, Russia is “right-wing”, aka woefully unwoke. Western elites regard Russia (per the late Senator John McCain) as “a gas station masquerading as a country”. Not so.

But we do have domestic culture wars in common, though the folks ruling the roost in Moscow have quite a different take on things than their Washington counterparts.

In 2013, Russia’s law “For the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating a Denial of Traditional Family Values” was enacted.  Commonly known as the gay propaganda law, it prohibited the dissemination of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” and materials that could encourage minors to “form non-traditional sexual predispositions”.

In mid-November, the Russian Ministry of Justice filed suit averring that the LGBT movement fomented religious and social strife. On 30 November, the Russian Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the movement was an “extremist organisation”, placing it legally on a par with terrorist groups. The ruling bans public displays and activities supporting LGBT lifestyles.

Right to life

On 3 November, President Putin addressed abortion: “Of course, the problem of abortion is so acute. The question is: what to do about it?”

He cited prospective measures that would “ban the sale of drugs that terminate pregnancy, or improve the socio-economic situation in the country, increase the level of well-being, real wages, social services, [and] assistance to young families in purchasing housing.”

The Russian Orthodox Church is lobbying for more restrictive abortion laws and proposing a package of reforms, including:

  • Requiring the husband’s “informed consent” for married women to have an abortion; requiring parental approval for underage girls
  • Mandatory pre-abortion counselling, including an ultrasound scan
  • Extension of the “contemplation period” from 48 hours to one week
  • Banning abortion after 8 weeks of pregnancy (current law is 12 weeks)
  • Allow rape victims 12 weeks to request abortion (current law is 22 weeks)
  • Prohibiting private clinics from performing abortions

In 2000, there were 2.13 million abortions in Russia. That has decreased to 506,000 in 2022. With a shrinking population, it is likely that further restrictions are in the cards. While that could bump up birth rates a bit, any significant reversal of falling fertility depends on – drumroll – priorities.

History

The first Year of the Family was in 2008, when the government reformed policies on the foreign adoption of Russian orphans. In 2012, Russia banned adoptions by Americans and is considering extending that to countries permitting “gender change”. In 2013, Russia outlawed adoptions by same-sex couples.

Following the dissolution of the USSR in late 1991, Russia’s birthrate collapsed to levels not seen since World War II, when an estimated 27 million Soviet citizens perished. The economy spiralled into depression while crime and a host of social pathologies spread like wildfire. Russia’s estimated fertility rate has since rebounded to between 1.4 and 1.6, but there is no decidedly upward trend.

In a late November address to the World Russian People’s Council, President Putin said:

We will not overcome the daunting demographic challenges facing us solely with money, social benefits, allowances, privileges, or dedicated programmes. True, the amount of the budget’s demographic spending is extremely important, but that is not all there is to it. A person’s points of reference in life matter more. Love, trust, and a solid moral foundation are what the family and the birth of a child are built on. We must never forget this.

Thankfully, many of our ethnic groups have preserved the tradition of having strong multigenerational families with four, five, or even more children. Let us remember that Russian families, many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had seven, eight, or even more children.

Let us preserve and revive these excellent traditions. Large families must become the norm, a way of life for all Russia’s peoples. The family is not just the foundation of the state and society; it is a spiritual phenomenon, a source of morality.

Like him or not, give credit where it’s due: President Putin is trying.

Latest legislative initiative

In response to widespread concerns about Russia’s demographic crisis, last week legislators from the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) proposed legislation entitled “On State Benefits for Citizens with Children” that would provide for the award 200,000 rubles (US$2100) per child to women who give birth before age 25.

The average age of a mother at first birth is inching towards 30. On introducing the legislation, LDPR deputies cut to the chase, saying, “Almost 40 percent of Russian women refuse to have children due to unsatisfactory financial situation and living conditions.” All women under age 25, regardless of financial situation, would be eligible for the benefit.

Why write about Russia? Look no further than our Mercator masthead: Mercator is your first stop for news and analysis that places the dignity of the human person at the centre of everything.

There are so many people in Russia, and everywhere else, for that matter, who agree. They are pro-family and our comrades-in-arms on the issues that count.

Today, we’re on the precipice of world war. Russia and America should strive for better understanding and expend more effort trying to get along than on antagonising one another. Direct people-to-people cooperation working for traditional family values can make friends and mitigate the geopolitical tangles contrived by avaricious elites. World peace depends on it.

Merry Christmas, Mercator fans!

AUTHOR

Louis T. March has a background in government, business, and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author, and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why I don’t think the population will collapse in the long run

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

Alex Jones Applauds Musk For Reinstating Him, Warns The ‘Establishment’ Will ‘Come After Him’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Infowars founder Alex Jones applauded billionaire Elon Musk on Sunday for reinstating him to X (formerly Twitter), but gave a sharp warning that “big establishment sponsors” will “come after him.”

Jones was reinstated on the social media platform Saturday night following a Twitter poll asking users if they would want the Infowars founder back on the site. After almost 2 million votes, results showed that 70.1% of responders wanted Jones back on.

The InfoWars founder joined his first Twitter space Sunday afternoon to discuss his thoughts on how it feels to be back on the platform since being banned in 2018 for alleged abusive behavior. When asked if he believed that Musk would possibly receive backlash for reinstating him, Jones stated that while it might “monetarily” hurt the platform, Musk is a “rebel.”

“Well, I think you said that yesterday … But he basically said it’s the right thing to do because the principle and it’s also what the majority of the vote said. So this probably will hurt X monetarily but ‘justice be done, may the heavens fall’ basically,” Jones stated. “But at the end of the day, it already has way more traffic and way more people — it’s avant-garde, it’s revolutionary, it’s rebel, it’s Maverick.”

“I’m not kissing [Elon Musk’s] ass, it’s true. And the fact that he could take over Twitter, free it and bring back one of the most demonized people — if not the most demonized in the world, talk about a witch hunt — shows he put his money where his mouth is and is the Maverick’s Maverick.”

Jones continued to state that while he was on Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson’s show last week, he had predicted establishments like the ADL and CIA will “come after” Musk “at a never-before-seen level.” The InfoWars founder additionally claimed they are attempting to “bully” Musk because they know Jones is a “rebel populist” figure that the “establishment fears.”

“So I said, ‘Look, I understand he knows I’ve been so demonized, so lied about, they built me into the devil’s devil at an emotional level of so many people that they will absolutely come after him at a never before seen level — this happens,’” Jones stated.

“And the ADL, the CIA and the Justice Department and the Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters — they were already doing it when I was taping the interview like three weeks ago. But since then, all those big establishment sponsors who are already being boycotted by the American people, by the way … Well, now they’re trying to bully Elon, to bully the American people, the people of the world.”

“But I think … as soon as they did that to him, even though he tried to, you know, basically work with them, was being very very fair … As soon as they doubled down he said, ‘You know what? Screw you, I’ll go ahead then and release the Kraken.’ And it’s not that I’m that good on Twitter or that I’m even that great of a talk show host. It’s the symbol of what they built of Alex Jones is now an archetype of the rebel populist and what the establishment fears. And so what Elon did was really throw down the gauntlet,” Jones stated.

Jones and his InfoWars show were “permanently suspended” from Twitter in 2018. Platforms like YouTube, Apple and Facebook banned the commentator as well, according to NPR. The social media platform, owned by Jack Dorsey at the time, was one of the last to kick Jones off, alleging he had violated their “abusive behavior policy,” the outlet reported.

Following the final verdict from Twitter, Jones posted a video claiming that he was taken down because he and the InfoWars show were telling “the truth” and that they were “popular.”

“This is the deep state striking back and really pressuring these tech firms to censor,” Jones stated, according to NPR.

AUTHOR

HAILEY GOMEZ

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘They’re Going To Kill Biden, Too’: Alex Jones And Tucker Carlson Discuss The ‘Deep State’

Elon Musk Could Be Making Yet Another Massive Gamble

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

Senate Republicans Block Key Vote for Foreign Aid Package without Border Security

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Last Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of President Biden’s foreign aid package because congressional Democrats refused to include meaningful provisions to secure our own borders.  Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) attempted to bring the package to the floor for a key procedural vote — a vote to proceed to debate, which requires a 60-vote threshold – but was unable to secure any Republican votes.  The final tally was 49-51, with two Democrats also voting no for unrelated reasons.

The foreign aid package included funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, along with more money to continue processing and releasing illegal aliens at the southern border.  The bill largely follows the Biden Administration’s supplemental funding request from October, including money for the border that would do nothing but reinforce the broken system without changing the policies that have fueled the crisis.

Schumer’s move followed several weeks of border security negotiations that saw Republicans pushing for commonsense reforms to end asylum abuse and stop unlimited parole authority.  Democrats meanwhile, were attempting to paint the discussions as “hard-right” while raising the idea of amnesty once again. The negotiations stalled right before the vote, with both sides expressing frustration.

The Senate group leading border security talks, in coordination with Senate leadership, restarted discussions on Thursday, noting that a new proposal is now on the table. That group is made up of Republicans James Lankford (R-Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), along with Democrats Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Krysten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

Senior Senate Republicans also held a press conference Thursday, making clear their continued commitment to border security changes as part of the foreign aid package.  Attending senators included Graham, Cotton, Tillis, John Thune (S.D.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John Cornyn (Texas), and Katie Britt (Ala.). Following introductory comments from Sen. Graham reiterating that amnesty is not being considered, Minority Whip Thune said Republicans are “dead serious” about ending the Biden Administration’s border crisis.

The comments echo those from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who after the vote stated: “It is profoundly unserious to pretend that national security priorities don’t include securing our nation’s borders… Right now, the crisis created by the Biden Administration’s neglect is bringing illegal aliens to the United States at a rate of 300,000 a month. That’s roughly the population of Lexington, Kentucky, arriving every month. And thanks to an asylum and parole system that desperately needs fixing, many of them are just brought straight in.” For his part, Schumer referred to last Wednesday as a “sad night,” continuing to say, “I hope that [Republicans] come up with something serious instead of the extreme policies they’ve presented thus far.”

The Senate vote came the same week that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded more than 12,000 illegal aliens attempting to enter the country illegally in a single day – the largest number ever recorded.  And, over the weekend, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs sent a letter to the Biden Administration demanding more than half a billion dollars be reimbursed for “ongoing border operations resulting from the federal government’s failure to secure the Arizona border.”  That development continues the trend of Democrat leaders calling out the Biden Administration on the issue, after Democrats in New York and Chicago also had criticism for the Administration in recent weeks.

Having demonstrated a united front last week, congressional Republicans have a real chance to deliver a win for the American people by standing firm. Three years into the Biden Border Crisis, this foreign aid package is perhaps the best opportunity to end the border surge by ensuring policy reforms are included to detain and remove illegal aliens, curb massive asylum fraud and halt the Administration’s rampant abuse of parole authority.  Fortunately, a blueprint to do that already exists in the FAIR-supported H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, passed by the House of Representatives in May 2023.  Throwing more money at the border crisis won’t solve it. We need real policy reforms and H.R. 2 is the solution.

To learn more about H.R. 2 and FAIR’s efforts to support strong measures to secure our borders, visit our activist toolkit here.

AUTHOR

Joe Chatham

Joe Chatham joined FAIR in 2022, bringing significant congressional, campaign, and nonprofit experience to the organization. As part of FAIR’s influential government relations team, he helps manage Capitol Hill outreach and policy, advocating for a secure border and a just, equitable legal immigration system.

Before joining FAIR, Joe worked with a large range of organizations, from congressional offices and political campaigns, to intergovernmental organizations and think tanks. Most recently, he served as counsel to a member of congress, where he handled the representative’s immigration portfolio for the House Committee on the Judiciary.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan, a Master in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School, and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illegal Immigration Surges Months After Biden, Trudeau Make Deal To Crack Down On Northern Border Influx

Lukeville, Arizona Point of Entry Forced to Close under Crush of Illegal Migrants

Immigration Court Backlog Sits at Nearly Three Million; Biden’s Policies Piling on More

Bill Seeks to Tip the Scales in Legal Immigration, Favoring Some Nationalities over Others

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © COPYRIGHT 2023 FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

President Donald J. Trump: ”I’m Running To Liberate America!”

/in , , , , , , , /by

“I’m extreme about MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!…And we need to be extreme in making that happen.” — President Donald J. Trump at the New York Young Republican’s Club 111th Annual Gala. 

Trump Truth Bombs: I’m Running To Liberate America [VIDEOS]

A lot of truth packed into just 67 seconds…

By RVM News Staff, December 10, 2023

Last night, Donald Trump spoke at the New York Young Republican’s Club 111th annual gala, and he did not disappoint. This clip is just over one minute long but he sure nails it.

Watch: Trump Was On Fire In NYC | Crusade To Rescue From A Corrupt Political Class

“Unlike crooked Joe Biden, I’m running to liberate America. We want to liberate America because we’re in a country that’s in a lot of pain right now, a lot of hurt. This campaign is a righteous crusade to rescue our nation from a very corrupt political class. They are corrupt. They’re incompetent, and they probably hate our country.

No longer will the men and women of America pay tribute to the people who threw open our borders, flooded our communities with deadly drugs, sold our jobs to China and other foreign countries, colluded with the big banks, conspired with corporate media, corrupted our government and unleashed murderers, rapists, and gang members, savages all to prey on innocent people that walk the streets of our cities.

They want Americans to be weakened, poor, confused, divided, and afraid. Why’d they want that? I don’t know. The only thing I can’t figure out is why they want that. I don’t know. If you put me back in the White House, however, the reign will be over, and America will be a free nation once again it will be a free nation.” – Donald Trump

In another memorable moment, Trump read ‘The Snake’ poem where he got a rousing applause from those in attendance. Watch:

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Donald J. Trump Is the Most Towering Political Figure in Living Memory

Just How Good Are The Polls For Donald Trump?

‘Righteous Crusade’: Trump Promises American ‘Comeback’

Watch and Understand the Faith of Donald J. Trump a Christian Man

RELATED VIDEO: If Trump wants to be a dictator, Biden’s providing the blueprint

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

Charting the Red/Green Revolution as it Happens Across the West

/in , , , , , , , , /by

NONE of the teens convicted of criminal conspiracy in the murder-decapitation of teacher in France, Samuel Paty in 2020 will see the inside of a jail cell

(I guess so long as they didn’t misgender someone…)

Six teenagers have been convicted for their role in the murder of French teacher Samuel Paty in 2020. Paty was beheaded by a Muslim refugee who took offense to his depiction of the Prophet Mohammed during a lesson on free speech.

Paty, a history and geography teacher, was stabbed to death and beheaded near his school in the Paris suburb of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine in 2020. His killer, an 18-year-old Chechen who arrived in France with his family as an asylum seeker aged six, was shot dead by police at the scene.

Prior to his murder, Paty had shown students images of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed during a lesson on blasphemy and free speech law.

After a closed-doors trial in a juvenile court, the six teens were sentenced on Friday. Five of the youths, who were aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the murder and helped the killer identify Paty, were found guilty of criminal conspiracy with intent to cause violence. 

A female student who was aged 13 at the time was found guilty of making false statements. She had claimed that Paty ordered Muslim students to identify themselves before the lesson, however, it later emerged that she was not present in the classroom, and that Paty had informed Muslim students that they could leave the room if they did not wish to see the offensive images.

None of the six will serve any jail time. The girl was handed an 18-month suspended sentence, while four of the others were given suspended sentences of between 14 and 18 months, and one was sentenced to six months in prison, which he will be able to serve at home wearing an electronic monitor.

More than 100 terrorists surrendered to Israeli Defense Forces.

A couple more Tweets on the Israeli issue and how the left has become the point of the spear along with Islam against the Nation state. Remember, when they talk about “anti-colonialism”, they are talking about you.

When religious Muslims use the term, “Freedom”, they mean freedom to implement sharia law.

When they use the term, “Justice”, they mean sharia law. We should all remember this from Obama’s Arab Spring when the US put in Mohammad Morsi as part of a series of colour revolutions in the Middle East. His party, which in reality was The Muslim Brotherhood, was called, “The Freedom and Justice party”. Once he ‘won’ the election after the first round of protests in Egypt, he implemented sharia and the people did not like it. Which is why you have Al Sisi today.

Often in war you can tell the goodies from the baddies by how they operate in this context. For example, when Muslims invaded Spain and took over the Iberian Peninsula, the commander burned all the boats upon arriving and explained that the options were victory over the Catholic Spanish, or death. Few to no Israelis would ever surrender to any Islamic force because of how prisoners are treated. To see this video above, is to know that these Hamas fighters have more faith in Israel to treat them humanely than they do in Hamas if Hamas knew they surrendered. And that is despite the dramatically un-Geneva-Convention way these terrorists acted from October 7th on. It is most likely though, that Hamas will attack again at the first opportunity and bargain for the freedom of these men in exchange for a few Israeli civilians they will kidnap.

4. I dare anyone to say the resemblance between Ontario’s dictator doctor in chief and Lenin is not deliberate. After all, it isn’t like Canada’s political elite isn’t openly supportive of Lenin, Mao and Marx and Engles. Oh and the story is about how he is shrieking about a new Covid wave

In a “call to action” Dr. Kieran Moore is urging more people — especially older adults — to get vaccinated against ahead of the holiday season.

I wonder why he feels that way.

So… Diversity is our strength

As we say many times before, “Diversity is our strength” is a dialectic. The fact is, “United we stand, divided we fall”. Diversity is our strength is one of the great cons of the last 40 years along with “multiculturalism”, (an impossibility) “safe and Effective”, and Global warming just to name a few.

Thank you all for your kind attention to this site and its issues.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Rape, Butchering of Israeli Women

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Genocide is what the Turks committed against the Armenians and the Nazis committed against the Jews.

Since October 7th, 2023 we have been in the presence of a crime without a name.

Read this article from The Wall Street Journal and explain to me why Israel should be sending humanitarian aid to the civilian population of Gaza which, if not stolen by the Hamas killers, will help many of the Gazan civilians who followed the Hamas terrorists on a rebarbative, grisly, subhuman and gleeful torture and killing spree of their own.

Explain that to me; explain that to me; can somebody damn well explain that to me?!

The Rape of the Israeli Women

Wall Street Journal

At first I didn’t understand. Among Hamas’s crimes of 10/7: little children and babies murdered, some burned to death; children forced to watch parents chased, beaten and shot. Old couples murdered in their homes; families who’d taken refuge in safe rooms burned out and killed. Hamas attempted to behead a kibbutz worker, and killed old women standing at a bus stop. Women were abused—raped, it seemed certain. But I didn’t understand why, from day one, the last received such emphasis. Defenders of Hamas kept demanding proof and claiming there was no evidence. It was as if they were saying: Sure we behead people and kill infants but raping someone, that’s crossing a line!

But now I understand what was done. It was grim and dreadful, but it was also systematic and deliberate. And since there’s going to be a lot of 10/7 trutherism—there already is—we have to be clear about what happened.

In the days after the attack, chaos reigned in the attack areas. At least 1,200 people had been murdered, their bodies scattered through kibbutzim and on the site of the Nova music festival. The crime scene was huge; the priority was identifying the dead and informing their families. Documentation of crimes was incomplete, forensic evidence not always recorded, evidence perishable. The testimony of witnesses, body collectors and morgue workers came in unevenly. It has built and is becoming comprehensive.

A stunning report appeared last weekend in London’s Sunday Times, by reporter Christina Lamb. Bar Yuval- Shani, a 58-year-old psychotherapist treating the families of victims, told Ms. Lamb she has been told by several witnesses of rape at the music festival. A police commander told Ms. Lamb, “It’s clear now that sexual crimes were part of the planning, and the purpose was to terrify and humiliate people.” Ms. Lamb quotes Yoni Saadon, 39, a father of four and shift manager in a foundry who was at the music festival. He said he hid as a young woman was raped, and saw Hamas fighters capture another young woman near a car. “She was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her. They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her.”

“We didn’t understand at first,” Ms. Lamb quoted Cochav Elkayam-Levy, a Hebrew University expert on international law, who heads a commission into the Hamas crimes. She said survivors arriving at hospitals weren’t asked about sexual abuse or given rape kits, but those who volunteered to collect bodies started reporting that many of the women were naked and bleeding from the genitals. The commander of a unit of a volunteer religious organization that collected the remains of the dead told Ms. Lamb they collected 1,000 bodies in 10 days from the festival site and the kibbutzim. “No one saw more than us. . . . It seemed their mission was to rape as many as possible.”

Israel Defense Forces sources told the paper that Hamas fighters caught in Gaza reported in police interrogations that they had been instructed by superiors to “dirty” and “whore” the women.

A few days after the Sunday Times report came one on the mounting evidence of violent sexual abuse from BBC correspondent Lucy Williamson. Several of those involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of the dead told the BBC that they had seen “multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears, and that the victims ranged from children and teenagers to pensioners.” Video testimony of an eyewitness to the music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, “detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim.” The BBC saw “videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack.”

The gallant gents of Hamas were filming their own war crimes.

Israeli police have privately shown journalists filmed testimony of a woman at the music festival. She describes Hamas fighters gang-raping a woman and then mutilating her. The last of her attackers shot her in the head. She said the men cut off parts of the woman’s body during the rape. In other videos, Ms. Williamson writes, women carried away by the terrorists “appear to be naked or semi-clothed.”

Reuters on Dec. 5 quoted an Israeli reservist who worked at a makeshift morgue. “Often women came in in just their underwear,” she said. “I saw very bloody genitals on women.” Reuters spoke to seven people, first responders and those dealing with the dead, who attested to the sexual violence. Reuters quotes written testimony from one volunteer, who said he saw dozens of dead women in shelters: “Their clothing was torn on the upper part, but their bottoms were completely naked.”

This Monday a meeting at the United Nations laid out proof of the violent abuse. In the New York Times, reporters Katherine Rosman and Lisa Lerer quoted the testimony of Simcha Greinman, a volunteer collector of remains at the kibbutzim. He said the body of one woman had “nails and different objects in her female organs.” A person’s genitals were so mutilated “we couldn’t identify if it was a man or a woman.” Other women had mutilated faces. The head of the International Crime Investigations Unit of the Israeli police was asked how many women were abused. He said, “I am talking about dozens.”

If half of this testimony is true, then what was done to the women at the music festival and in the kibbutzim wasn’t a series of isolated crimes. It happened at scale, as part of a pattern, and with a deliberateness that strongly suggests it was systematic. The rape, torture and mutilation of women looks as if it was part of the battle plan. Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon.

Why has the progressive left in the West, for two months now, been disbelieving, silent or equivocal about what Hamas did to women? One answer is that the progressive left hates Israel and feels whatever is done to Israelis is justified. Another is that the sick brutality of Hamas’s actions undercuts its position in the world, undercutting too the cause they falsely claim to represent, that of the Palestinian people. Why have women’s groups of the progressive left been silent? Because at bottom they aren’t for women; they are for the team.

All of this makes more remarkable the exchange between Dana Bash of CNN and Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Seattle. Ms. Bash pressed Ms. Jayapal on why she wasn’t condemning what had been done to women on 10/7. Ms. Jayapal was evasive, tried to redirect, said rape is “ horrific” but “ happens in war situations.”

“However,” she said, “I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians.”

Balanced? How do you balance a story like the horrors of Oct. 7? You don’t, you just find and tell the truth. Some stories don’t have two sides. This is one of them.

Why is it important? Because it happened. Because it reveals something about the essential nature of Hamas and reflects its ultimate political goals. Progressives admiringly quote Maya Angelou’s advice that when people show you who they are, believe them. Oct. 7 was Hamas showing you who they are. Believe them.

AUTHOR

Paul Schnee

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Hamas Using Rape As A Weapon of War’: Viral Post Claims More Women Abducted By Pro-Palestine Militants, Pictures released

The End Is Nigh: Hamas Operatives Surrender in “Large Numbers’

APPALLING: Menorah Lightings Canceled Around the World as Towns Remove Jewish Symbols

POSTS ON X:

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

Multiculturalism is a Form of Colonization and Occupation

/in , , , , , , , , /by

In previous articles, I have gone into detail about how attending the mosque as a Muslim is different from attending the church as a Christian, as well as my complicated family life as an ex-Muslim Christian. What I want to talk about in this article is my experience with multiculturalism in Britain.

I’ve lived in two different cities in my lifetime. I’m not going to reveal the names of these cities, but I’ll give vague clues. One of them is in the North West of England and the other is in West Midlands. The city I grew up in was in the North West of England and me and my family moved down to somewhere in West Midlands. We moved cities a year after I converted to Christianity, so my first year of being an ex-Muslim Christian was actually my last year of living in my city of birth.

There are major differences between the two cities I’ve lived in. One of these major differences is that my current city is far more “multicultural” than my city of birth. It has a lot more Muslims than my city of birth and less native Brits than my city of birth, and for that reason, it is worse. It is more dangerous and unattractive. Multiculturalism is a form of colonization and occupation that has turned British cities and towns into third world ghettos where Islamists, jihadis and radical leftists flourish, and in the process, the national identity of those cities and towns gets erased, rendering them virtually unrecognizable. Parts of Birmingham and London look like they could be mistaken for Pakistan or some other foreign country.

What I’ve also noticed about Muslims and minorities in general, is that they tend to segregate themselves from non-Muslims and the native British population in general because multiculturalism gives them the pretext to do it. Women are also gradually erased from public life because of this strict gender segregation. Muslim women also tend to be less outspoken and exhibit less of their personality under multiculturalism than British women who aren’t living in the multicultural pockets of Britain. Men and women are segregated because mixing is thought to lead to sexual misconduct e.g. fornication and adultery. One of the problems with this hyper sexualised view of mixing between men and women is that it actually leads to Muslim men becoming socially inept and incompetent when they interact with women. They also start lusting after them when they get a chance to see them. Socializing with members of the opposite sex also doesn’t necessarily lead to sexual activity. Most of my interactions with women are incredibly mundane. While I will grant that there is a problem with fornication and sexual promiscuity in Britain and the modern world by extension, this cannot be blamed solely on lack of gender segregation

My opposition to multiculturalism of course, doesn’t mean that I think that a society of different races is bad. Multiculturalism and multiracialism go hand in hand, but they’re not one and the same. Multiracial societies can work if all races agree to abide by the same rules, laws and be on the same team. Multiculturalism however, enables people to go by their own rules, laws and play their own game, and we’ve seen the effects of it. Just look at the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford. Just look at the crisis of illegal migrants invading the country under the guise of being “refugees” and “asylum seekers” when they’re actually economic migrants who have come to leach off the welfare state at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. Just look at the Muslim rioters in Leicester. Just look at the pro-Palestine/Hamas mobs since October 7.

Multiculturalism, if it isn’t already obvious, is an unmitigated disaster. It is a failed experiment. The entire experiment is a treacherous crime against the native population of Britain (i.e. English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people) and from the looks of it, it will most likely just get worse. It would take a miracle for Britain to recover from this treachery and reverse the disastrous effects of it. The question is, will such a miracle actually happen, or is Britain doomed? Are all efforts to save it from its impending doom going to be in vain?

My grandparents moved to Britain in the mid 1960s. My grandad initially came all by myself, and brought my grandma and their children in the late 1960s. They all lodged a house in North West England and my grandad worked at a factory. My dad and aunt have told me that there was widespread racism in the 60s, 70s and 80s. For example, there was this one time in the 70s when my grandad was walking home from the mosque, and he was punched, spat on, and called a Paki.

Things however, have changed since then. I never experienced systematic racism while growing up in the 2000s and 2010s, and it’s because Britain has not only become very tolerant and accepting of minorities, but has actually bent over backwards for them, so I have no ill will towards native Brits or white people in general. I actually feel like I owe them my respect and want to help them in their struggle to maintain sovereignty over their homeland because it has gotten to the other extreme in that native Brits are now the ones who are getting racially abused by minorities.

But what I find incredibly frustrating is when I see toxic, divisive race baiters like Sadiq Khan, Humza Yousaf, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Bushra Shaikh and Narinda Kaur. They’re all of a minority background and they constantly blame white people for society’s ills. The white man is the boogeyman in their twisted worldview. I am so sick and tired of having these clowns as my representatives because I don’t agree with them at all. They are the very racists that they falsely accuse native Brits of being. Bushra Shaikh is the most vile example that I named. I will grant that yes, they were probably on the receiving end of racism in school and whatnot, but that was decades ago. Things have changed tremendously since then. They need to grow up and accept that things have changed. At times, their grievances with being called the P word seem like an excuse to have some petty revenge against white people by being in favour of them being demographically replaced and erased. Sure, being called a racial slur is bad, but that’s nowhere near as bad as mass, uncontrolled, illegal migration and what it has done to Britain.

The good thing is that there are minority voices who are speaking out against critical race theory and the anti-white agenda, such as Calvin Robinson, Nana Akua, Mahyar Tousi, Konstantin Kisin, Benyamin Naeem Habib and many others. Those figures are far better examples of minority voices than the toxic race baiters. Benyamin Naeem Habib in particular is a great example because even though he is of Pakistani heritage, he is a co-deputy leader of Reform UK, a nationalist political party that has been gaining some momentum. A lot of disillusioned Tory voters have left the Tory party to join Reform UK.

I find myself becoming increasingly worried about the ongoing Islamisation of Britain and the rise of anti-white racism. As a Pakistani ex-Muslim Christian, I wonder what my place is in all of this. What role am I going to play in all this? How am I, as a second generation migrant, going to help native Brits who have been so thoroughly abused by critical race theory, two tier policing and uncontrolled, illegal mass migration?

The fact of the matter is that people of minority backgrounds need to stand up for native Brits. We shouldn’t just let them be demographically replaced and turned into a minority by mass migration. Britain not only welcomed us with open arms, gave us so many rights and opportunities, but actually gave us special privileges that we quite frankly don’t deserve. Is this really how we’re going to pay back the people who welcomed us? I don’t want to have the privilege to be racist to white people and not be punished for it. I don’t want to have the privilege to commit horrific crimes and have them swept under the rug because the authorities are too scared of being called racist, bigots, Islamophobic or xenophobic for implementing law and order against criminals of minority backgrounds. I don’t want my ethnic group to have the privilege of not being held accountable for our racism against other ethnic groups, especially when Pakistani Muslims tend to be incredibly racist towards Indian people, Afghan people and black people. Equal rights comes with equal responsibilities. We have the former, but not the latter.

People like myself have a moral responsibility to help native Brits. If we don’t do that, then we have failed. In the past several months, I have felt this moral responsibility growing in the back of my mind because of people like Sadiq Khan and Humza Yousaf, who are Pakistani Muslims. Sadiq Khan, for example, said that white families don’t represent “real Londoners” a few months ago. Such vile antics have made me want to make amends to their injustices against native Brits.

At the same time, I have become sick to death of Muslims, especially Pakistani Muslims and their savage, barbaric and immoral culture. I literally still live with them, so I witness their immorality not only online, but in the real world, within my family and local community. I don’t hate them, but there are things about them that I hate. I hate their victim complex. I hate their lack of accountability. I hate their lack of respect for Britain. I hate their racism. I hate their violence. As a result of all this, I have become increasingly divorced from my native Pakistani culture because Islam is deeply embedded in it. My Pakistani heritage has become so meaningless and irrelevant to me. My ancestors on both my mum and dad’s side of the family are many generations of Muslims and I am more than happy to put an end to this. I have decided to embrace British nationalism because I find that my values are more in line with the British than the people of my heritage. British nationalism is, in my opinion, the perfect solution to Islamisation. It is also an ingenious means of preserving Christianity under a secular framework since Christianity is deeply embedded in British culture and traditions.

As a Pakistani Christian, I think I speak for all Pakistani Christians when I say that I am not in favour of white Europeans being demographically replaced. I wasn’t born and raised as a Christian, but all the Pakistani Christians that I know have no interest in imposing a Christian variant of Pakistani culture on westerners. We recognise that the West has offered us a lot. Christians in Pakistan are routinely murdered, raped, acid attacked and forcefully converted to Islam. We received brutal persecution from Muslims back home and many of us fled to the West to escape such persecution and have freedom. One of the last things that we’re worried about is being called the P word, which is quite frankly at the bottom of the barrel of the problems we’re facing. This is also another reason why I sympathize with the grievances that native Brits have with mass Muslim migration; Pakistani Christians know the pain too well.

Since I am still in the closet, I can’t really do much because my hands are already full with my situation, which I have talked about in depth in previous articles. But there are small things that I can do in the meantime. For example, I recently decided to become a member of Reform UK out of a desire to contribute. Annual membership only costs £25. I also voted for Nigel Farage to be crowned King of the Jungle when I got an email from Richard Tice, who urged Reform UK members to vote for Nigel Farage. To provide some context for this, Nigel Farage made an appearance on the “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!” show and he made national news for standing his ground on Brexit and putting the case for controlled immigration. Since then, the establishment media has been doing everything they can to destroy Nigel’s public image and prevent him from winning. And of course, I’ve also been on an online crusade against Islam for the past 2 years.

It might not be much, but it’s all I can do for now. I wish I could do more. I sometimes feel powerless for not being in a position to do more. Under ideal circumstances, I would be launching a ruthless crusade against this grave injustice. I pray that one day, I will be able to be of much better help.

AUTHOR

AHMED ANWAR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago: Gang leader converts to Islam, tries repeatedly to send money to ISIS

The Worst Are Full of Passionate Intensity

They are ‘Passionate About Palestine,’ But They Can’t Find Palestinian Territories on a Map

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Muslim murders his sister in honor killing over her ‘inappropriate’ relationship

Spain: Muslim cleric tried to indoctrinate children into becoming Islamic State jihadis

No, There Has Been No Sixteen-Year Israeli Siege of Gaza

Islamic Republic of Iran: Security forces raped and sexually assaulted male and female protesters as young as 12

France: ‘ISIS propaganda is now coming back to seduce a new generation of teenagers’

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

Al Gore: Ban Free Speech, Just Like Guns, to Save the Planet

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“They ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned.” — Al Gore

While most people forgot about Al Gore a decade ago, the 75-year-old environmental tycoon with a net worth in the hundreds of millions (also a former vice president) has doubled down on his flavor of green fascism in the name of saving the planet from everyone but himself.

Gore is making $2 million a month from his “green investment firm” which has been having some problems. Its assets fell from $39 billion to $30 billion and its biggest fund suffered a 28% decline. And investors may be rethinking whether a firm that pays Gore $2 million a month so it can claim it’s saving the planet by buying Microsoft, Amazon and Adidas stocks is worth it.

But Gore is keeping busy. At COP28, the UN climate summit, he demanded that voting rules be changed so that a majority of countries, rather than a full consensus of nations, could impose mandates on the United States and oil-producing nations. That means a bunch of third world countries would have veto power over our entire economy. Good for them, really bad for us.

Fresh off insulting the Saudis and the UAE ($100 million of Gore’s money came from Qatar, a foe of both, linked to Hamas which used his failed leftist cable network, Current TV, as a springboard for its failed terrorist cable network, Al Jazeera America), he decided to also go to war against freedom of speech and the internet.

Despite inventing the internet, Gore showed up to a Bloomberg Green event to rant about “algorithms”. Algorithms are not, despite what some Gore fans (all 12 of them) think, named after him, and it was pretty clear that the elderly belligerent massage enthusiast was not too clear about what they were either. But in the traditional fashion of leftists wanting to ban something by comparing it to Hitler or AR-15s, he went with the assault algorithm analogy.

“If you have social media that is dominated by algorithms that pull people down these rabbit holes that are a bit like pitcher plants, these algorithms, they are the digital equivalent of AR-15s,” Gore ranted. “They ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned. It’s an abuse of the public forum.”

(But not the kind of rabbit holes that convince people that the planet is going to blow up unless they invest a lot of money in Al Gore’s fund to save the planet by buying Amazon stocks.)

Gore was blathering about algorithms because they provide a legal argument for censorship. Conservatives are concerned about social media algorithms censoring them while leftists complain that social media algorithms aren’t doing enough censoring. When taking Chinese money during his vice presidency, Gore had claimed that there was “no controlling legal authority”, but like most leftists, he’d like there to be a controlling legal authority for speech.

Toward the end of his spiel, the old tobacco salesman turned planet-saver got to his real point.

“These devices are the enemies of self-government, and they’re the enemies of democracy. We need reforms for both democracy and capitalism, both sets of reforms are possible,” he said.

Leftists have spent 7 years howling that democracy is under threat. Everything they do is in defense of democracy. When they rig elections, criminalize political dissent and terrorize opponents, it’s because they’re trying to save democracy from “authoritarianism”.

(And sometimes you have to ‘authoritarianize’ the global village in order to democratize it.)

On stage at a forum funded by a billionaire and to an audience of like-minded elites, Al Gore argued that democracy, like capitalism, needs to be reformed. There’s something wrong with democracy, much as there is with capitalism, and the thing that’s wrong with it is that there’s too much of the wrong kind of speech. The First Amendment needs to go, just like the Second Amendment, because we can’t just have people owning AR-15s or opening their mouths.

Al Gore’s fortune came from promising to reform capitalism by making it “sustainable”. What he actually did was be a very well compensated frontman for an ex-Goldman Sachs exec named David Blood (he has joked about naming the firm ‘Blood and Gore’, but that might have been too much on the money in more ways than one) to put a green label on noted environmental stocks like Microsoft and Amazon. Instead of people just buying whatever stocks they wanted, they would invest in an ESG fund that would promise the stocks are politically the ‘right kind’.

Speech works the same way. Making speech sustainable will require ending this anarchic situation where anyone can say whatever they think. There will be guidelines and an approved list of things you can say. Perhaps there may be a 7 day waiting period for some kinds of controversial speech. The really dangerous forms of “assault speech” will have to be banned for the good of the public and the planet. The Founding Fathers had never owned an AR-15 or had access to the internet and so the 1st and 2nd amendments were never meant to apply to them.

If people are free to say whatever they want, they might recollect the time that the noted doomsday prophet for profit warned that “there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

That was in 2009.

Al Gore may have a poor grasp of ice and the internet, but he does understand crisis. The power to denounce something as dangerous invents a crisis that allows the government to step in, gate it off and limit access to the right sorts of people. Like Al Gore and his political allies.

And there’s nothing Al Gore knows better than how to pound the podium and declare a crisis.

The ‘Al-gore-rithms’ that Al Gore would like to see imposed would replace the AR-15s of free speech with the water guns of approved speech, and the pollution of popular speech for the unpopular sustainable green speech certified by the experts and the elites of the ruling class.

Free speech is the enemy of self-government and democracy, Gore claims. And so the  salvation of self-government and democracy must be totalitarianism. We can’t have democracy or self-government with free speech. Only when the emissions from our mouths are as closely regulated as Gore would like to regulate the emissions from our kitchens and our cars will our self-government be saved from our selves and our democracy from the ‘demos’.

Al Gore wants to save democracy the way he saved the planet. But who will save free speech and the planet from totalitarians who promise to save the things that they want to control?

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

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

Ivy League University Leaders Resign Amid Outrage Over Handling Of Campus Antisemitism

/in , , , , , , , /by

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) president and Board of Trustees chairman both announced their resignation on Saturday, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian.

UPenn President Elizabeth Magill faced widespread criticism following a hearing of the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee on Dec. 5, where she refused to say that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the university’s policies. Scott Bok, the chairman of UPenn’s Board of Trustees, announced that Magill had resigned from her position in a community message before later announcing he would also step down.

“Today, following the resignation of the University of Pennsylvania’s President and related Board of Trustee meetings, I submitted my resignation as Chair of the University’s Board of Trustees, effective immediately,” Bok said in the statement, obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian. “While I was asked to remain in that role for the remainder of my term in order to help with the presidential transition, I concluded that, for me, now was the right time to depart.”

Magill will remain at her position until an “interim president is appointed,” Bok said in his original announcement. She will also “remain a tenured faculty member at Penn Carey Law.”

BREAKING: Liz Magill has resigned as the President of @Penn following her disastrous congressional testimony. pic.twitter.com/BxIP9kILsD

“It has been my privilege to serve as President of this remarkable institution,” Magill wrote. “It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community members to advance Penn’s vital missions.”

Magill’s testimony prompted one donor to UPenn, Ross Stevens, to withdraw around $100 million donation to the university. The board of the university’s Wharton School, its well-renowned school of economic and business studies, also explicitly called for her resignation.

UPenn’s board held an emergency meeting to discuss the fallout from Magill’s testimony on Thursday.

Over 70 members of Congress issued a letter calling for her removal, alongside that of Harvard University President Claudine Gay and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Kornbluth. Gay has since apologized for her testimony.

AUTHOR

ARJUN SINGH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard President Plagiarized Her Dissertation

House Committee Opens Investigation Into Antisemitism At Elite Universities After ‘Absolutely Unacceptable’ Testimony

Free Speech Advocates Aren’t Buying University Presidents’ Sudden Affinity For The First Amendment

RELATED VIDEO: Congressional hearing with the University Presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Why Donald J. Trump Is the Most Towering Political Figure in Living Memory

/in , , , , , , , /by

“No policy that does not rest on some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained.” — Abraham Lincoln

The Director of the Claremont Institute Tom Klingenstein recently gave a seventeen minute speech about Trump titled “You Know His Vices, But Do You Know His Virtues?”

When people say “I like Trump…but..”, they should understand those “but” characteristics they dislike are the very traits that make Trump the best champion in our lifetime, for this current “cold” civil war.

Klingenstein explains: “Doubters shouldn’t be bothered by a President who says Haiti is a shithole behind closed doors, or that Maxine Waters has a low IQ . Doubters should be worried about a candidate who can’t say it, won’t say it, or lies about saying it.”

Below are a few Trump reminders that Director Klingenstein made in his speech.

  • Trump knows the media can’t be negotiated with, or reformed. It must be defeated.
  • Trump smoked out rats from hiding places. We now know our intelligence agencies are corrupt.
  • We watched Trump loosen the grip of political correctness, while Republicans wouldn’t engage.
  • Trump made it clear it’s a privilege to enter our country, foreigners should assimilate to us.
  • Trump wants back that nostalgic America guided by relentless optimism, grit, and determination.
  • Before Trump, politicians hid from the public that China is our mortal enemy. Now we all know.
  • Trump’s virtue, backbone, and fortitude are the new standard to judge candidates.
  • Trump’s supporters, and the spirit they embrace, are the new life force of the Republican Party.
  • Trump was born for this current crisis, the life and death fight against woke communism.
  • The “cold” civil war divide in our country was exposed by Trump, not created by him.
  • In war you need strong men to make a stand. Trump is a manly man, with resolve.
    When you’re in the right, you fight to win. Sometimes this means doing distasteful things.
  • Leadership strength is in short supply. Trump understands there are no clean hands in a fist fight.
  • Trump wants people to learn how to love our country, not be taught how to hate it.

WATCH: You Know His Vices, But Do You Know His Virtues?

ABOUT TOM KLINGENSTEIN

Tom Klingenstein is the Chairman of the Claremont Institute, he is also a philanthropist, public speaker, writer, and a playwright. He believes that we are in a cold civil war and that our enemy—what he calls the “Woke regime”—are winning, in large measure because Republican leaders have yet to engage.

His essays, speeches and plays all encourage Republicans to do just that— to think, talk, and act as if we are at war. Among his essays are: “Preserving the American Way of Life”, Fighting the Mob”, “Winning the Cold Civil War”, “Men and the Future of America”, and many others. His work has been published at the Claremont Review of Books, Newsweek, American Mind, American Greatness, and Real Clear Politics.

His speeches such as, “A Man vs. A Movement”, “Trump’s Virtues”, and “Racism in America Today” have been viewed by millions of his fellow Americans. His most recent play, “If Only” explores a fictional interracial love story with Abraham Lincoln playing the role of matchmaker.

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

POST ON X:

RELATED VIDEOS:

Mainstream Media Attempts To Label Trump As A Dictator

The Anti-Trump Alarm Bells Are Ringing